Cal Invitational UC Berkeley
2024
—
Berkeley,
CA/US
Individual Events Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
Hisham Abdelhamid
Evergreen Valley
None
Alison Abravanel
Northwood High School
Last changed on
Mon January 8, 2024 at 5:47 AM PDT
I am normally speech so I'm a lay judge for debate. Don't run K's!!!
Daniel Aguilera
Able2Shine
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 8:12 AM PDT
I have 0 speech and debate experience. Please don't spread and be clear.
Add me to the email chain at danielagui2005@gmail.com
Anees Ahmed
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 10:09 AM PDT
Hello Speech and Debate enthusiasts -
I am a parent judge and I have been judging Speech and other individual events for the past 4 + years.
I prefer to listen to the debate framework and evaluate your arguments and reasoning in relation to the arguments and evidence. A key element of judging debate for me is how you differentiate yourself from the opponent. Additionally, providing an overview will help as well.
As for speech events having a clear and to-the-point communication style will be helpful.
Delivery-- I want to make sure that you as a speaker use effective oral presentation skills. This would include evaluating you on volume, diction, and speed of delivery. As a speaker, I want to evaluate if you demonstrate poise and effective body language that fits well with your speech. I believe it helps if as a speaker you are able to relate to the mood and the emotions of the character(s).
Finally, I believe that knowing your topic well and ensuring that you are able to reach the audience is key.
|
jagadeesh aileni
Dougherty Valley High School
None
Escadar Alemayehu
George Washington HS
None
Farnaz Alim
Monta Vista High School
None
Anar Anand
Dougherty Valley Bridge
Last changed on
Sat February 17, 2024 at 12:05 AM PDT
Email: anar.s.anand@gmail.com - feel free to add me to the threads
I am a parent judge and an alum of the Stuyvesant High School Speech and Debate Team in NYC. I have a few simple ground rules and requests.
Speech / IE
These are long rounds and I expect you to be alert and engaged throughout the round regardless of your speaker order. This is basic courtesy and you yourself will perform better when your audience is engaged so please extend the same courtesy to your fellow competitors. I come with no pre-conceived notions about your topics or performances so your choice of topic or argument is not what I'm judging. My feedback will be based on delivery, presence, soundness of reasoning and how you develop your points/arguments/characters. Most importantly, enjoy yourself up there and have fun with it - if you're not comfortable, we'll know.
LD / PF
Be respectful of one another and of the platform you are given as a debater. If you ask a question in cross, allow the other person to actually respond. If you've already presented something in an argument, restate your point concisely rather than say you've already stated it earlier. These are skills you're building for life.
Debates are won by those who make good arguments, not those who have the loudest voice. Make strong arguments with supporting evidence, present your case with confidence, drill into your opponent's case with challenging questions.
I'm not a fan of spreading as I believe the mark of a good debater is to make strong arguments and get your point across clearly and concisely rather than try to pull a confundus charm on your opponent. While I won't deduct points if you do it, keep in mind I can't judge what I can't understand. It is your job to convince me why your arguments and presentation of them should win you the round.
Keep it simple, make it interesting, have fun with it!
Parsa Ansari
Leland High School
None
Kiran Aralapuram
Monta Vista High School
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 11:19 PM PDT
My approach is simple -
1. content - original, no fabrication or speculation with transparent sources/examples.
2. Organization - flow => topic introduction, topic(s), and conclusion. The transition between topics.
3. Presentation - clarity, pauses, audience connect, language quality, voice modulation, and tone.
Thanks to Kids, Parents, Coaches, & Organizers.
Bharathi Arasan
Archbishop Mitty
Last changed on
Sat February 17, 2024 at 3:16 AM PDT
Lay judge with little circuit debate judging experience.
At the end of the round, I’m going to vote for the team that I thought was more convincing. I don’t have any preferences about what arguments are more appealing to me than others - if you can explain something and weigh it for me / explain why I should care about it, then that’s all I need. Whichever team does a better job of that is going to win my ballot.
Here are some things I like:
- Sign-posting, and organization: I won’t be flowing every line, but that doesn’t mean I should be getting lost
- Don’t be too “techy” or use a ton of jargon unless it’s something intuitive / something you’ve explained
- Cross-ex being used effectively: cross-ex is your time to shine, and show your prowess as a debater. Don’t waste it
- Weigh arguments in the final speeches
Here are some things I don’t like:
- Not speaking clearly / talking too fast
- Being disrespectful - Do not talk over each other during cross, don’t be rude, etc.
Angelica Archuleta
The Harker School
None
Sammie Armatas
George Washington HS
None
Paula Arnold
Miramonte High School
None
Kimiya Attar
Archbishop Mitty
None
Doncy Augustine
Monta Vista High School
None
Javier Ayala
Cal Independent
None
Last changed on
Sun January 28, 2024 at 1:59 PM PDT
I'm a Berkeley student with 0 experience. Don't spread and be clear. Please over explain.
Add me to the email chain @ zahiraba148@gmail.com
Mayank Bansal
Dougherty Valley Bridge
Last changed on
Fri February 9, 2024 at 8:06 AM PDT
I prioritizes a well-rounded evaluation, taking into account not just technical proficiency but also the speaker's creativity, adaptability, and contribution to the overall debate atmosphere.
Key Components:
-
Effective Communication Skills:
- Assess the speaker's ability to articulate ideas clearly, persuasively, and adapt to the needs of the audience.
- Acknowledge the importance of effective non-verbal communication, including body language, gestures, and vocal variety.
-
Critical Thinking and Argumentation:
- Evaluate the quality of arguments presented, considering the logical coherence, relevance, and depth of analysis.
- Encourage debaters to demonstrate critical thinking by anticipating counterarguments and addressing them effectively.
-
Engagement with Opponents:
- Acknowledge the importance of respectful and constructive engagement with opponents.
- Assess how well the speaker engages with opposing viewpoints, fostering a positive and intellectually stimulating debate environment.
-
Creativity and Originality:
- Recognize and reward innovative approaches to argumentation and presentation.
- Encourage speakers to bring fresh perspectives, creative examples, and unique rhetorical devices into their speeches.
-
Adaptability and Flexibility:
- Appreciate the ability of speakers to adapt their strategies based on the flow of the debate.
- Recognize how well speakers adjust to unexpected challenges or shifting dynamics during the course of the debate.
-
Ethical Conduct and Sportsmanship:
- Consider the ethical conduct of debaters, emphasizing fair play and adherence to debate rules.
- Reward speakers who exhibit good sportsmanship, contributing positively to the overall debate culture.
-
Contribution to Debate Atmosphere:
- Assess the speaker's contribution to creating a dynamic and intellectually stimulating debate atmosphere.
- Recognize speakers who foster a positive and inclusive environment that encourages thoughtful discourse.
-
Constructive Feedback:
- Provide detailed and constructive feedback that goes beyond numerical scores.
- Offer guidance on areas of improvement, helping debaters enhance their skills and knowledge for future competitions.
Conclusion: I promote a nuanced and comprehensive approach to judging speech and debate. By emphasizing not only technical proficiency but also creativity, adaptability, and positive contribution to the debate atmosphere, I seek to cultivate a more enriching and educational experience for participants while promoting the highest standards of excellence in competitive speech and debate.
Parveen Bansal
Dougherty Valley Bridge
Last changed on
Thu February 15, 2024 at 2:11 PM PDT
I am technical product manager and been a parent debate judge couple of times before this event. Please consider few things if I am judging you.
- Speak clearly and don't rush.
- I value clear, concise arguments supported by credible evidence and sound reasoning.
- Appreciate debaters who demonstrate critical thinking and make connections between different pieces of evidence.
- Be respectful even when disagreeing. Avoid personal attacks.
Have fun!
Brian Banuelos
Nova 42 Academy
None
Arya Barirani
Los Gatos
None
Last changed on
Sat February 17, 2024 at 7:08 AM PDT
Personally, I'm open to all types of speech! However I do have just a few nit-picky issues that I want to point out:
First, if your piece contains anything that could possibly be triggering to other competitors, issue a content warning before beginning your performance.
Second, try to stay off of the floor if possible. It'll be difficult to see especially on camera.
That's all!
Claire Beamer
Palo Alto High School
Last changed on
Sat January 13, 2024 at 10:34 AM PDT
Hi! I'm Claire. I was decent at PF in high school (College Prep BB, if you want to stalk me). I still coach (Palo Alto High School) and debate (BP and APDA at Stanford).
How I judge PF:
Tech > Truth, I'll vote off of anything on the flow as long as it's 1) warranted and extended and 2) not offensive/discriminatory in any way.
Evidence still needs warrants. Please have good evidence ethics and send evidence quickly. I will call for evidence if it's contested, and it should be a proper cut card that actually says what you say it does.
Frontline in second rebuttal and collapse well in the back half, it'll make the round much nicer for everyone involved.
Extend your arguments fully, don't just extend taglines and author names. If you want me to vote for an argument it needs to be warranted and weighed in both summary and final focus.
Weighing should be comparative. Don't just read made up jargon, give me actual reasons why your impacts are more important and tell me how to evaluate the round.
I'm fine with speed. Send speech docs (cbeamer@stanford.edu) if you're planning to go fast (or even if you're not), but I won't flow off of the doc; if you're going too fast or are unclear, I'll let you know, but after that it's on you if I miss anything.
I'd prefer you debate the topic, but I'm fine with progressive arguments and will evaluate them just like any thing else. For theory debates, I default to competing interps and no RVIs but you can change that pretty easily.
I don't care about your "brief off time road map." Just tell me what flow to start on and signpost during your speech.
Feel free to ask me any questions before round! And, if you have any questions, feel free to reach out (email or messenger).
How I give speaker points:
1. Auto 30s to everyone in the round if you collectively agree to have a paper only round with no evidence and treat it like it's British Parliamentary.
2. Otherwise, they will be based on cross. I promise I have good reasons for this; I will not elaborate.
How I judge anything else:
Do whatever you want; I probably won't know the rules of your event so you can make new ones up for all I care. Although, being persuasive, reasonable and clear will probably be in your best interest.
Dave Becker
Westmont
None
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 10:59 PM PDT
Hello! I am a parent judge supporting my oldest son's speech aspirations. Now in my 7th year as a speech parent, judge, and sorta coach I have judged 100+ rounds and hundreds of presentations across middle school and high school competitions - primarily in OO, HI, DI, Duo and more. I judged the NSDA nationals DI finals in 2022 which was an incredible round and experience. I also judged the middle school NSDA final round for storytelling in 2019 along with plenty of state and nat quals through the years. Across various events, here are my thoughts as applicable for your event...
I hope to be persuaded by your thesis or argument
I want to be engaged and moved by your presentation
Your characters should be fully developed and come through clearly and distinctly
Use sources responsibly to complement your work without overwhelming with stats and figures
Show creativity and something novel relative to other competitors
Most of all, own your work, have fun, and know that you are a winner just by competing. Thank you!
Susan Bett
Valencia High School
None
Sudhir Bhat
Dougherty Valley High School
None
Debapriya Bhattacharya
West High School
None
sujit bhide
Crestview Independent
None
Shalini Biju
Archbishop Mitty
None
Shikha Biswari
Monta Vista High School
None
Kaare Bodlovich
Peninsula High School
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 11:59 AM PDT
E-mail kaareanna74@gmail.com
About me:
-
I am a Judge for Peninsula High School. Admittedly, I am more in my element judging IE, but I also thoroughly enjoy judging debate. I may know some basic concepts, but I’m still learning and possibly am unfamiliar with more specific terminology.
-
I try really hard to be fair and objective to both sides of an argument. I do not let my biases or background knowledge taint who or how I vote each round. I vote for which team did the better debating, not which team is closer to truth.
-
Style: Please speak slowly and clearly. Flow your opponents, and answer their main arguments sequentially. I prefer the debate to have an organizational clash that makes reasoned judgement possible.
-
Quality: I care about argument quality, not argument quantity. I vote for the team that did the better debating. Source quality matters to me - if you read qualified sources, tell me their qualifications and read exact quotes (not debater biased paraphrasing) and it is more likely I believe it.
-
Note Taking: I will take notes during each speech, to keep a record to better organize the debate to help evaluate which side wins.
-
Rebuttals matter: In your last speeches - be sure to summarize the main points you want me to vote on and offer impact why that outweighs your opponents main points. I will limit my decision to solely arguments extended in the last two speeches. Completely new arguments cannot be first brought up in the rebuttals, because both sides need a chance to develop the argument in earlier speeches first. If new arguments are brought up, I will ignore them.
-
Have fun, do your thing! Please treat each other with respect.
Rasya Bollu
Canyon Crest Academy
None
Karim Bouhairi
Northwood High School
None
Atalie Brown
East Mountain High School
None
Patricia Burgess
Albany
None
Kristi Burton
Sonoma Academy
None
Margo Butera
Valencia High School
None
Taelynn Cain
Kent Denver School
None
candice canty
Able2Shine
None
Anh Cao
The Harker School
Last changed on
Sat February 17, 2024 at 8:49 AM EDT
Background: 2 years LD for Copper Hills High School, judging/coaching after high school, no college experience
I was more of a traditional debater, but I understand progressive pretty well. I probably won’t connect the dots if you’re just stating authors or shells, so make sure to explain any and every argument you’re using. I don’t have a preference to what you’re running as long as you’re explaining it well and clashing with your opponent’s case.
I’m a flow judge, so your biggest concern should be clash, organization, clarity, etc. If it’s not making it onto my flow, then I’m probably not weighing it.
Weighing is telling me WHY it matters. Just because you win the argument doesn't mean that I care. Tell me why I should care. You should be addressing this throughout the debate so the judge isn't doing your work for you.
EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. Once you extend, I'll write it down. Save time and keep organized. You should also be weighing the argument while extending it, instead of just re-reading the same taglines.
Specifics:
Speed: Spreading/Spewing is ok, but slow down on tags. If you want me to understand your case, then make sure you’re slowing down for the main ideas. I’ll say “clear” if needed, so let me know if you’re uncomfortable with that.
Prep: Time yourselves, but I’ll also keep time.
Progressive (CP/Kritiks/Theory/DA/etc.): Didn't run much of it personally, but definitely enjoy judging these rounds. Since I’m not familiar with specific authors, shells, etc., make sure to slow down on tags, explain it in a way that I can see that YOU areunderstanding it (not just spreading a prepped document), and weigh it.
Traditional: Although logic is great, make sure to have cards/evidence to support your arguments. WEIGH.
Body Language:I’m also usually flowing, so no need to be nervous about eye contact.
I look forward to judging you! If you have any further questions, feel free to email me caoanhp@gmail.com.
John Cao
The Golden State Academy
Last changed on
Fri January 19, 2024 at 11:20 AM PDT
Public Forum
Emphasize logic and flow, facts & evidences; value respect and professionalism. Manner, behavior and sincerity matters.
Judged in SCU & North Bay.
Zijian Cao
Monta Vista High School
None
Fernando Cereceres
Westlake High School
Last changed on
Mon January 22, 2024 at 5:27 AM EDT
--Speech--
Hi y’all! My name is Fernando Cereceres. I’m a speech judge who specializes mostly in the interps.
Overall, within any speech, I like to see both physical control of your body within the space and verbal control over your speech. Facial expressions are EVERYTHING!!! Even within Extemp, oratory and info, showing us that you know/care about what you’re discussing is extremely important.
EXTEMP:
First and foremost, I judge based on who answered the question best through their 3 points. I then look at the content of each point and see how your sources/analysis tie back into your Q&A. Delivery/hand gestures in extemp are important as well. Make sure that your delivery matches the theme of the content you’re giving. For example, it’s probably a good idea to not have a super upbeat/happy vocal delivery when discussing international conflicts. Same goes for hand gestures, make sure they’re motivated and not just used for filler.
OO/INFO:
For both INFO and OO, I usually judge based off of topic, solutions/implications, and delivery. The topic should be something fresh and interesting, something that makes the audience go “what? I’ve never heard of that. That's so interesting.” This isn’t to say that if I’ve heard about your topic before then I’ll down you, but it’s all about how you present/perform the information as well. Solutions and implications should also be fresh and well thought out. They should be thought provoking for both the judge and the audience and should make us see your topic in a more nuanced way. Delivery should match the content of your speech. Whether it’s serious, funny, or impactful, your vocal delivery and gestures should match that.
INTERP:
I judge interps based on topic/argument, character work, and moments. The topic/argument of your piece should be fresh and intriguing. Why is your piece important for the audience and how does your argument introduce a new way of thinking for us? Character work is also extremely important within interp. Do you embody your character? Are the choices you make as the character authentic to who they are? Lastly, moments are extremely important within interp. What I mean by “moments” are the occurrences within the piece that you, the performer, decide to give special emotional significance to. For example, the climax of the piece should always be a “moment” where we get to sit with your character at the peak of their emotional journey. There are also moments outside of the climax where people layer the performance with emotion and subtext that contributes to character/plot development. Choose your moments wisely and commit to them 100%. I’m also a sucker for silence within a piece. Silence, if done right, can communicate much more effectively than words can.
Author's intent: I stand by the author's intent unless it’s part of the performer's argument to perform something outside of the literature's intended purpose. In that case, it must be explicitly stated within the intro as to how/why the performer decides to do something outside of the author's intent.
Kayla Chalabi
Independent Hormoz
None
Hana Chang
Gunn Sr High School
None
Soumen Chatterjee
Monta Vista High School
None
Tarika Chawla
Evergreen Valley
Last changed on
Fri February 9, 2024 at 12:21 PM PDT
I am a parent judge. I focus on speech clarity, content, clarity of thoughts and delivery.
I don't have a preference as to philosophy or economic arguments, but I have to be able to understand them. I would prefer a slower speaking speed.
Last changed on
Fri January 26, 2024 at 1:11 PM PDT
I'm a parent judge with over four years of experiencing judging speech and debate. For debate, I value argumentation more than delivery, but please signpost and make your arguments relatively easy to understand. I don't understand theory, Ks, topicality, or any of that, so please don't run that. Above all, be respectful and have fun!
Ed Chen
Fremont High School
None
Eric Chen
Redlands High School
Last changed on
Thu February 15, 2024 at 8:31 PM EDT
Overview:
I'm a former flay LD debater. I prefer to judge the style I debated.
Preferences:
I highly prefer stock arguments and generally discourage circuit techs. I understand baseline K's and such, but the more obscure tech you read the more risk you run of me not understanding it/weighing it properly (I will not drop your opponent for disclosure etc). If you still choose to do so, that's on you. If ur opponent has good link and impacts on actual arguments and you don't actually interact that much I'll likely just vote for them. Don't read tricks.
Do not spread. I won't drop you for it, but the extra cards you can fit into your speech are not worth me missing it/flowing wrong, or just disliking you for spreading in general. You don't have to read super slow but if you go off at 200 wpm that's your choice.
I'm tech over truth unless the truth is egregiously blatant. Weighing is key. If you can convince me, I'll vote on whatever you say is important in the round.
Ethan Chen
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
luojia chen
Foothill High School
Last changed on
Fri February 16, 2024 at 7:37 AM PDT
This is my 2nd time doing public forum debate judge. I prefer the debate display solid logic, lucid reasoning, and depth of analysis; utilize evidence without being driven by it; present a clash of ideas by countering/refuting arguments of the opposing team; communicate ideas with clarity, organization, eloquence, and professional decorum. The critera I evaluate the rounds is the quality of arguments made including logical reasoning, maturity of thought, and effectiveness of communication.
Veronica Chen
Able2Shine
None
Last changed on
Sat February 17, 2024 at 9:23 AM PDT
Hi, I’m a current second-year at UC Berkeley— I have experience competing in speech (impromptu, extemp, oo, oi). For debate events, speak clearly (might mean going slower) and make sure arguments are well structured.
good luck and have fun!
varshac@berkeley.edu
Maya Chivakula
Leland High School
None
Lea Clark
Redlands High School
Last changed on
Fri March 15, 2024 at 5:18 AM PDT
she/her/hers
tl;dr - be nice, signpost, pls no kritiks. I was a pufo debater and it shows :')
Judging preferences - Summary
Always signpost. pls. always. signpost. Always.
Your number 1 job is to debate the topic. I want to hear about the topic. I like arguments about the topic, SIGNIFICANTLY MORE than arguments about the rules and how your opponent is messing up the debate because their arguments "don't hold according to CHSSA or NSDA rules..." I've found that in past years, everyone says that their opponent's case "don't hold." Keep the debate educational, I know enough about the rules by now.
My favorite kind of debate is a slightly fast, intellectual Public Forum/LD debate. If I can't understand you due to speed or lack of pronunciation, your contention will not make it onto my flow. Or, I simply won't care enough to write it down. Far-reaching analyses of improperly used evidence may just result in my perplexion and the audience's confusion. However, evidence-based conclusions that show a deep understanding of the topic are always appreciated. I do NOT like Kritik arguments in high school debate. I'm slightly ok with them in LD. Do NOT run them unless you have NO OTHER OPTION.
In-Depth Prefs:
Please - Always signpost.
Speed is whatever. I can handle spreading, but if your competitor asks you to go slower and you ignore them, I will be very annoyed. The purpose of the debate is to educate - not bulldoze. If you need to spread to win, I won't vote for you. IMO, three strong arguments are better than 6 weak ones. If you want to spread, become a policy debater. A couple of my best friends in High School made it to Parli finals at the state championship without spreading, so there's no need to do it.
Flow Style is typically on an Excel sheet, so if you're speaking so fast that I can't type it and I miss a contention ... you're going too fast.
Evidence is the most critical component to me. To me, the best defense in debate is a strong defense. Well constructed arguments should have citations and explain to me why a case should win. However, evidence isn't everything. If you are concerned about recency or methodology, make it ONE point. Don't turn the debate into a squabble over those things because I stop listening. Evidence is concrete and empirically explains the case.
Theory is a stepping stone in debate. It's fun to listen to if it's thoughtful and enhances your case. However, if you're just throwing around debate jargon and my paper starts to look like a million arrows, then the theory point isn't worth it. Because I did LD for a while, I can follow inherency/solvency/topicality/harms. I think they have great potential to either make a great case phenomenal... or to give me a minor headache for the afternoon.
Attitude is key. Be kind or lose, it's just a tournament. Your opponent may be new and trying this out for the first time - don't be the person who ruins public speaking for someone. Don't be a dingus. A dingus is too fast, mean, demeaning, rude, etc. Keep it pleasant, no chair-throwing. :)
Kritiks in HS Debate imo usually waste the hour - not always, but they rarely convince me. As in, out of the hundreds of rounds I've watched - there's only been one time I've voted for it. And that was a practice round. If you want your Kritik to win, ground it in evidence - but for the most part, I don't care for a Kritik. I don't recommend running one unless this is one of the worst debate topics ever generated. Please don't run them. I am slightly more ok with them in LD debate, but mainly because I know the debate has been trending that way for a while and some topics are dependent on them now. So... I'll listen in LD.... but I can't guarantee I'll like it.
Kritiks in College Debate are fine, but I still don't like them very much.
About me:
Head Coach of Redlands High School
Premier Distinction and 5 Diamond competitor
State Runner-up in Informative 2017
Stanford 2018 Informative Champion
Frequently hungry in round
Maribelle Cruz
Notre Dame San Jose
Last changed on
Sat February 17, 2024 at 7:11 AM PDT
I have been a judge associated with Notre Dame High School since 2018 as my older sister is the director of speech and debate there. Tournaments I have judged include invitationals and state qualifiers. My experience includes debate events such as public forum and Lincoln-Douglas, as well as interpretative, oratory and extemporaneous speech events. My debate judging style focuses on the value criteria of net benefit or maximizing welfare. If I feel the proposal would potentially do more harm than good compared to the status quo, I would vote for the negative. If the proposal seems to be more beneficial compared to the status quo, I would vote for the affirmative.
Daniel Csuti
Canyon Crest Academy
Last changed on
Fri February 16, 2024 at 9:43 AM PDT
I am a former high school debater with several years of experience in Parliamentary debate. Regardless of the debate format, I will reward clear and concise speaking as a judge. I do not appreciate unnecessarily fast speaking; speaking too fast will hurt your chances of being understood properly. Additionally, I value critical thinking and sophisticated arguments. Don't just default to mainstream political talking points or assume I am biased towards a specific ideology. Be creative in your arguments. I will enter each debate with a clean slate, minimizing all my preconceived biases to the best of my abilities. Besides a few fundamental extremes, don't assume I will judge something as definitively bad or good. I will reward all arguments as long as they are thorough, convincing, and well-delivered. Debate isn't about who is right or wrong, but rather the art of delivery and persuasion. Best of luck!
Julia Cudney
The Harker School
None
Pamela Curry
Fremont High School
None
Avi Das
Monta Vista High School
None
Galen Davis
Fremont High School
None
Shelby Davis
Natrona County High School
None
Charles Dawson
Wasatch High School
None
Madhura Deo
Lynbrook HS
None
Aman Desai
Monta Vista High School
None
Manoj Desai
Cleveland HS
None
Makarand Deshmukh
Lynbrook HS
None
Venus Dhanda
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Jordan DiNapoli
Valencia High School
None
Anitha Dixit
Monta Vista High School
None
Herbert Dong
Able2Shine
None
Catherine Duan
Redlands High School
None
Yunlei Duan
Monta Vista High School
None
Tarun Dwivedi
Monta Vista High School
None
vidushi dwivedi
Redlands High School
None
Gigi Emerson
George Washington HS
None
Aless Escobar
The Harker School
Last changed on
Sat March 2, 2024 at 1:56 PM PDT
Hai i am aless (she/her) My email is: alessandraescobar113@gmail.com
Currently debating for the CSULB policy team
Graduated in 2023 & was an active varsity lamdl debater for 2 years.
Preferences-
I am tech over truth however in certain circumstances I will vote truth over tech (usually when the debate round is un-technical to begin with)
I don’t tolerate homophobia, sexism, racism, abelism, or any offensive arguements so don’t try it or I will give you a 25 or simply stop the debate round. If you insult me or the other opponents then I will stop the round and report you. This is an educational activity and I prioritize making this a safe space for everyone.
Onto specific arguments
T/ framework- Just give me everything; definitions, interps, clash, blah, blah ect I love when people tell me how I should judge and give me a clear outline of what the debate means.
Kritiks- I love kritiks especially on the negative. Please run them right though. If you have a k aff tell me how to use your method, why it’s good, and a logical explanation as to why you decided to be untopical. Please don’t simply say something like ‘racism is bad’ give me an acual method on how you specifically combat that (and why that’s good). It’s the same ith kritiks on the negative but just ive me clear links and reasons I should prefer.
Policy affs- I love soft left policy affs but I can rock with a hard policy one too. There’s not much for me to say here except be prepared to over explain yourself with me since I usually judge/prefer krtiks.
DA’s- Explain this well and tell me why your impact outweighs.
CP’s- I think cp’s are funny but I still can vote for them. Just be clear and explain why your cp matters/outwieghts. I do think cp’s can be abusive though so if the aff points this out to me I might vote on it.
More- I am pretty much a laid judge I love instructions on how to evaluate the round so I do prefer role of the judge/ ballot. I love when people use their voice to empahsize important things which is one of the things I take into account when assigning speaker points. ALSO if you have some form of feminism in your arguments I absoluley love that!!! (give me some crenshaw evidence).
The best way to contact me is through email. Bug me if you have any concerns/ questions. Even if I cannot answer them I will give you the people/resources you need to get what you are looking for.
That's it for my paradigm,,, byeeeee!
P.s if i give you a 30 you will get a hello kitty sticker (ur welcome)
.
Terri Ettinger
Monta Vista High School
None
Bridget Fawcett
Snohomish High School
None
Amara Fernandes
Archbishop Mitty
None
Sarah Ford
Valencia High School
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 7:00 PM EDT
DEBATE: My preference for debate is that you make your case based on clear, cogent arguments. Elaborate whenever possible, explaining how your sources support your arguments (don't just say you "have a card" and thus assume your case is proved).
When making a technical argument, such as a dropped point, a failure to refute/counter a point, or when asking me to cross-apply a contention, always explain your reasoning. Do not just say "my points all flow through judge" or "their entire argument is discounted judge"; I will decide that based on the merits of your case.
SPEECH: For limited prep events, or any other event featuring student writing, I judge mainly on content. Speaking style does come into play when breaking ties or in very tough rounds.
For more performative speech events, I lean a bit more toward performance/style, but I still consider the cutting of your piece to be an essential part of the competition. Pieces with cuts that are illogical or confusing often will be ranked lower for me. I also consider the narrative shape of a performance; I look for a traditional dramatic arc with a clear situation, an emotional climax, and falling action (if not clear resolution).
Natalie Frederick
Sam Barlow HS
None
Emma Fryer
The Harker School
None
Christine Gabr
Valencia High School
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 11:46 PM PDT
I am a second year parent judge. If judging Debate I will flow the rounds and would appreciate clear, concise speech that is at a reasonable pace. If you spread I will not be able to follow you. If I can’t follow you or understand what you are trying to say, I can’t vote for you. I also appreciate courtesy. I expect you to follow the rules, argue well and provide quality versus quantity. Please try to make eye contact with me and not speak directly into your paper.
If judging Speech please articulate and speak clearly. Have fun and engage your audience!
Suryakumari Gadey
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Thu February 8, 2024 at 1:22 PM PDT
I am a parent judge with no experience in this event. Assume I have no background knowledge about the topic you are discussing.
Speak slow and explain your arguments clearly.
Good luck and have fun!
Swarupa Gadiraju
Folsom High School
Last changed on
Fri February 16, 2024 at 1:20 PM PDT
I am a parent judge.
I judge off the flow of the debate & speaking style, and the points you bring to the table.
No Spreading (speak at a decent pace, if u speak too fast I will not be able to flow your case, and your points won't be taken into consideration ), and don't use a lot of complex jargon.
Weighing and framework is important,
Make sure you weigh why your impacts are better than your opponent's.
To get Higher speaker points - maintain professionalism, be calm and respectful, and have good speaking styles.
Make sure you signpost so it is easy for me to flow the debate and explain your points in detail. Make sure you also give definitions at the beginning of the debate because I am coming into this debate with no knowledge of your topic.
Mahalakshmi Gandhi
Monta Vista High School
None
Khush Gheyara
Miramonte High School
None
Elizabeth Ghiami
Miramonte High School
Last changed on
Sat March 2, 2024 at 12:04 AM PDT
Hi! I consider myself a Novice judge . Thus, please tailor to my level of experience .
Please articulate clearly and with good volume. I wear a hearing aide.
If you have the option, I prefer normal rate of speech vs rapid fire.
I value politeness.
Thank you.
Alexandria Gift
New Roads School
None
Donovan Glover
Burbank High School
None
Maria Glover
Burbank High School
None
Arun Goel
Monta Vista High School
None
Collin Goemmer
Hastings HS
Last changed on
Fri January 19, 2024 at 3:41 AM CDT
Hello I debated for 4 years in High school and have been judging for 6 years, I am in my first year an Assistant Coach at Blanson CTE High School
Debaters: If your opponent clearly is less experienced than you and you exploit that to stroke your ego I will drop your speaks to the lowest number I can and i will down you even if you won the round on the flow and I will contact your coach. Practices like that are unethical and takes away the educational aspect of debate. Also I don't like these progressive things that have been ran at recent tournaments, I have no problem with progressive arguments that are ran well however most of the time they are not done well.
Do not ask me to pre flow you should know your case already, I like big picture or line by line I'll judge the round on either, impact calculus, make sure you weigh for me, I HATE FRIVOLOUS THEORY, and also don't run anything you don't understand. Be respectful and have fun
I want an educational round over a competitive round. If you spread the other team out of the room, are intentionally vague and unwilling to explain your vocab, or are generally rude and dismissive, especially against a novice team, I'm giving you an L and giving you the minimum number of speaks. My view of debate is as an educational activity first and competitive second. Local tournaments are to foster critical thinking skills and create more nuanced, educated high schoolers.
First: this is a communication event it does not matter if I can understand speed DO NOT SPREAD, I cannot flow what I cannot understand and it is not my job to read off of a doc. You can send me the doc, but I will only refer to it if there is a problem with evidence.
Second: be respectful the easiest way to get me to drop your speaks (and you'll likely loose the round too) is if you are being rude
Third:DO NOT MAKE UP SOURCES I will fact check you and I will get in touch with your coach and the tournament director, you CAN use the internet in rounds now
Fourth: Debaters I DO NOT DISCLOSE Do not ask me to disclose and all comments will be on the ballot
Congress Kids: do not wait until the round has started to take splits do that before the round. and I HATE in house recesses to take splits especially when y'all just started. another thing, when y'all take splits and you need to write a speech in round go with the least popular side of the debate as it increases your chances at getting the speech. CLASH IS ESSENTIAL FOR CONGRESS TO BE A DEBATE EVENT!!!!!! When y'all take in house recesses it makes you look unprepared. When you get up to give a speech make sure you are actually adding something to the debate rehashing old arguments does nothing for the debate. When you clash with past arguments make sure you mention specific arguments brought up and the speaker who said it.
Extemp: I like to see a well organized and structured speech. You need a good hook to capture the audiences attention. DO NOT MAKE UP SOURCES I can tell when a source is made up and if I think you are making up a source I will fact check you. I hate being lied to in extemp. MAKE SURE YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION!!! That is the quickest way to get me to drop you in rank if you don't answer the question, you could have excellent analysis but you must answer the question
Interp: I'm not gonna lie this is probably the event I am least equipped to judge, but I like to see good blocking, clear character transitions and distinctions between characters. In POI make sure you have a variety of pieces in your program. Bring the emotion out in your piece, that does not mean you need to scream to convey emotions
OO:I like to listen to a good oratory. I love the speeches where I learn something and maybe make me feel inspired. Speech should have a catchy agd/hook that transitions naturally into your background information. Make sure you have a solution for your problem. When choosing a topic try to make it unique there are several topics that are commonly used so make your speech unique. I like to see acronyms for your solution. Make sure you have a call to action
Info: Informative is a different event from OO so don't give an OO in info. One of the main differences is that in Info you do not offer a solution you offer societal implications. I love to see infos that actually teach me something I didn't know before I came to judge the round, so be creative I love to see unique info visuals and topics
PF
LD
Congress
Policy
Extemp
Conflicts: Bridgeland HS, Blanson CTE HS, Avalos P-Tech
Manoj Gopalasetty
Monta Vista High School
None
Kasey Graves
East Bakersfield High School
None
Christine Gruhn
Sacramento Waldorf High School
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 3:32 AM PDT
I am an experienced speech and Congress coach, and a former competitor.
In Congress, I value respect and courtesy, delivery, an analysis of real-world impacts, evidence and clash - so unless you are the first speech, you need to show me that you are listening and responding to the other speeches in the round. I don't want to hear the same arguments restated and rehashed at the end of the round - give me some new ideas, or some summative analysis. Even if you give a fantastically delivered and well cited speech, if you aren't trying to ask good questions at every opportunity throughout the round, I'm not going to rank you highly. It is, after all, a debate event.
In Lincoln Douglas and in other styles of debate, please don't treat debate like a game. I am very traditional, and treating it like a game with progressive argumentation, performance Ks, K Affs, and RVIs harms those in small schools who don’t have the advantage of many team members to teach them the game, and it creates more inequities in debate. I listen carefully, write down excessive amounts of information and I vote off my flow so if you want my ballot, give a strong final speech that addresses, crystallizes and weighs the key arguments in the round. Show that you were listening to and have evidence to counter arguments presented by your opponent(s). These speeches demonstrate your ability to think and interact with your opponents’ case, much more so than your ability to read a prepared case, that you may or may not have written yourself. Don’t spread. If I can’t understand what you are saying, I can’t flow your case. And no one spreads in real life. Off time road maps are a waste of time. Just as a good extemp speaker should not have to read me the prompt before they start the speech, I should be able to follow your road map within your speech.
In all debate events, and in life, the most important thing is to be kind.
Tracy Guerin
Highland independent
None
Ethan Guo
BASIS Independent Silicon Valley
None
Charu Gupta
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 11:25 PM PDT
I strongly advocate that parents should feel completely at ease when evaluating public forum debates at all levels. It's the responsibility of debaters to adjust and accommodate, rather than the other way around.
I don't encourage spreading, talking extremely fast is not preferred. Have creative arguments. If you are the second speaker, I would prefer if you address the opponents argument during your speech and provide a rebuttal.
Don't use too many technical terms and if you do explain them.
Let your opponent complete their thought in cross before interrupting.
Always be respectful and kind to your opponents.
Ekta Gupta
Monta Vista High School
None
Lewis Gurgis
Democracy Prep Bronx Prep
None
Gene Gutnik
Monta Vista High School
None
Happy Hai
Able2Shine
None
Julie Hammerman
Miramonte High School
None
Dyllan Han
The Harker School
None
Last changed on
Sun January 21, 2024 at 6:17 AM EDT
The following aspects will be observed and evaluated:
-- Face/body expressions
-- Explicitness and clearness of point statements
-- Organization of your arguments (logic and logistics)
-- Contentions and supporting evidences (examples, data, citations, etc.)
-- Speech fluency and tone
-- Question asking and answering (relevance and significance to the topic)
-- (Politeness to opponent and judge)
Johnathan Harris
Archbishop Mitty
Last changed on
Fri January 5, 2024 at 6:54 AM PDT
I have been coaching Speech and Debate for Archbishop Mitty HS for 3 years now. I have a strong background mostly speech from when I competed for James Logan HS from 2002 - 2006: 3rd Place in Duo at the 2005 National Tournament. 2006 California State Champion in Duo.
I have a strong grasp on national and international topics. When judging debate, I will be looking for teams that are respectful to one another and make strong points for their cases while also effectively taking apart their opponents cases.
Byron He
Saratoga HS
None
Jaeden Hemmingsen
George Washington HS
None
Tanner Hemmingsen
George Washington HS
None
Cole Hesterberg
Clovis North High School
Last changed on
Thu February 15, 2024 at 1:49 PM PDT
I am a former California High School LD debater, and a former Speech and Debate Coach. I am currently an Environmental Economics and Data Science student at UC Berkeley. I am not necessarily a fan of spreading, so if you really want to spread, do it well and in a way that your case will not suffer. Other than that, I have no specific do's or don'ts. Best of luck, and if you are still unsure about a certain style or strategy, feel free to ask me before the round.
Emily Hiller
Albuquerque Academy
None
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 5:58 PM PDT
I am a parent judge and will be judging individual events (speech). I look forward to your presentation. Good luck!
· Be creative and relevant
· Speak clearly with confidence
· Find the right tone and pace
· Connect with audience and pay attention to other performers when not speaking
· Be kind to others
Johny Hong
Sacred Heart Cathedral Prep
Last changed on
Sat March 2, 2024 at 8:27 AM PDT
Email - jhong@shcp.edu
In high school, I competed in policy debate, public forum, and original oratory in California's CFL. I also attended CNDI and a few circuit tournaments in policy as a junior and senior. Finally, I competed at the California state tournament in policy debate and at the NSDA national tournament in public forum. Currently, I'm a social studies teacher and a debate coach at Sacred Heart Cathedral in San Francisco.
Notes specific to policy:
-It's been a long time since I competed on the circuit. The most important consequence concerns speed. I can handle some, but will likely have a lower tolerance than most regular circuit judges.
-Tabula rasa, as much as possible. Most familiar with fascist "USFG should" debates, but I'm willing to vote for alternative role of the ballot arguments. Love to see the dying art of stock issues, if that's your thing.
-I'd rather see fewer well-researched, well-constructed, and well-articulated arguments than a lot of dubious ones. I know every paradigm says this, but it's particularly important to me. As a student and teacher in the social sciences, I've noticed that a lot of what we do in policy debate is poor social science. Not all of you will grow up to be political scientists or economists, but I do believe that everyone can benefit from a better understanding of what constitutes good social science. Causal inference ought to require a high burden of proof in policy debate, just as it does in academic social science.
-In terms of performance, I'm old fashioned and against things like tag team cross X. For better or worse, my view of speech and debate remains obstinately stuck in the days of jackets and ties.
-Finally, be kind. I have more experience with the activity than a parent judge, but if you wouldn't do it in front of a parent, then don't do it in front of me.
Ning Hongxiu
Archbishop Riordan High School
Last changed on
Fri January 26, 2024 at 2:36 PM PDT
I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly, clearly, avoid any debate jargon, and be organized in your speeches. Give me a clear RFD in your last speeches.
Laura Howell
The Harker School
None
Hannah Huefner
The Harker School
None
Caleb Hui
Able2Shine
None
Romu Iancu
Monte Vista
None
Hemant Iyer
Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy
None
Juhi Jadav
Leland High School
None
Anoop Jain
Monta Vista High School
None
Preeti Jain
Saratoga HS
None
Ruchita Jain
Monta Vista High School
None
Matt Jakstis
Redlands High School
None
Sesh Jalagam
The Golden State Academy
None
Ethan Jan
Redlands High School
None
Ram Janakiraman
Monta Vista High School
None
FNU Jayapraveena
Monta Vista High School
None
Sydney Jew
Amador Valley High School
None
Tegan Jones
University
None
Ameya Joshi
Monta Vista High School
None
Nikhil Joshi
Monta Vista High School
None
Justin Ju
Monta Vista High School
None
Margaret Kalaw
Flintridge Sacred Heart Academy
Last changed on
Sat February 17, 2024 at 1:36 AM PDT
Hi y'all! I debated PF with a good mix of district and circuit tournaments all 4 years of high school.
essentials:
- be fair & respectful in and out of your rounds and stay within time limits of speeches and prep. going about 10 seconds over in speeches is generally ok, but I'll stop flowing anything after that.
- everything collapsed on during final focus should be extended through summary. give me a way to weigh the round; please don't leave me to decide how to evaluate everything. you also don't have to wait til summary/final focus to start weighing impacts!
- in terms of frameworks, I'd prefer if you gave me one and actually used it throughout your round, but otherwise I'll default to cost-benefit analysis.
- for me to buy an argument, you have to explicitly state your warranting and links, otherwise it's harder to access any impacts. doesn't hurt to extend warranting all the way to final focus.
preferences:
- PLEASE SIGNPOST! off-time roadmaps are also fine.
- if you're the second team giving the rebuttal, you should frontline your case, though i'll still flow through frontlines brought up in summary. but it'll probably be harder to for everyone in the round to respond to it.
- i think reading full cards can be a waste of time, paraphrasing is ok as long as you cite it. but don't just cite the card and expect me (or your opponent) to know what you're talking about.
- i'm a fan of using frameworks to run creative arguments! using the framing actively during the round and to weigh impacts keeps debate interesting :)
- most importantly, have fun!! debate is a such a cool and engaging activity and our primary reason for being here is to learn about these topics analytically and in depth.
Praveen Kambampati
Mira Loma High School
None
Ravi Sudhakar Kambhampati
Monta Vista High School
None
Mani Kancherla
Monta Vista High School
None
Aamit Kancherlapalli
Leland High School
None
Guhan Karthik
Archbishop Mitty
None
Ahilan Karuppusami
Archbishop Mitty
None
Aditi Kelkar
Monta Vista High School
None
Katherine Kelley
La Costa Canyon High School
None
Catherine Kellick
Natrona County High School
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 1:32 PM MDT
My biggest paradigm is to be respectful to your opponents. I want to see a clean fair debate. I want debaters to speak clearly and don't rush so fast that I can't understand them.
Sameer Keswani
Archbishop Mitty
None
Manish Khadiya
Valencia High School
None
Dineshkumar Kharabe
Eagle Independent
None
Last changed on
Sun February 4, 2024 at 8:13 AM PDT
Don't spread, I'm a student that goes to UC Berkeley.
Robert Ko
Monta Vista High School
None
Last changed on
Fri February 9, 2024 at 10:27 PM PDT
Hello there!
Some things to consider:
Cases:
Please share cases with each other before your first speech. A speech doc would be helpful if you are reading any cards during your rebuttal. I need to be able to access all evidence that you use.
Speed:
It is the debater's burden to make sure that the speech is clear and understandable. While I will not knock spreading/speaking quickly immediately, the faster you speak, the more clearly you must speak and signpost. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it into my flow. I vote off of my flow for all rounds.
Impact:
Impact arguments by both the Aff/Neg should be clearly stressed and extended. It's worth repeating and stressing if you feel you have the winning arguments. Don't just say "______ impact has more chances of happening than my opponent's impact of ____" I would like to see evidence on anything you do present on impact debate.
Clash:
Clash is necessary. You must convince me that your arguments outweigh your opponents. Dropped arguments leads to that argument being won by whichever side presented it. If your opponent dropped an argument, make sure to clearly state that during your speech in case I miss it on my flow.
Off-Case:
I am okay with Topicality/interp. If one does run T/interp the opposing side I would say the other side has to respond. If the T has been dropped, whoever ran the T is more likely to win the round.
I am familiar with the capitalism K, ethical imperatives K, and Feminism K. If you read any unfamiliar K's, please explain well.
Counterplans are okay with me. Make sure to explain how your counterplan would have more benefits than your opposing side.
Refutes:
Any cards you read against your opponent, be sure to ask if I or the opponent would like to see them before moving on. (or just use a speech doc like I mentioned earlier)
Other:
Be respectful to one another and make sure you are not making your opponent feel uncomfortable in any way.
Good luck and I'm excited to judge your debate!
Suneetha Kosaraju
Mira Loma High School
None
Rajesh Kotari
Monta Vista High School
None
Subramani Kottilingam
Dougherty Valley Bridge
Last changed on
Fri February 16, 2024 at 1:03 PM PDT
Supporting DVHS, I have small experience in judging LD debates. However, I am willing to take the initiative to excel in judging.
I prioritize clarity, knowledge, and content when awarding points to debaters.
When making a decision at the end of the debate, I consider factors such as confidence, presentation, style of delivery, and communication.
I am proficient at taking notes. Please send me speech documents to subramaniktt@gmail.com or through speechdrop.net.
Please talk at a conversational speed for me to evaluate your speech.
Thank you, and I wish you all the best success in this tournament as well as in your future ventures.
Alex Kristoffersen
Redlands High School
None
Clio Krohne
Redlands High School
None
Yogapriya Kumaravel
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 11:34 PM PDT
Hello,
I am Yogapriya Kumaravel. I represent Dougherty Valley High School.
Even though my children do debate I have judged very few rounds but I will take notes and do my best.
I strongly value evidence.
Speech:
Impromptu:
- presentation is very important
- judge based on how well topic is incorporated in speech
- effectiveness of analysis will be considered
Humorous Interp:
- should feel real and not forced
Dramatic Interp:
- facial expression and voice inflection are very important for dramatic interp
- strong emotional connection to words being spoken
Annie Lai
Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy
Last changed on
Wed January 31, 2024 at 3:07 AM PDT
I am a parent judge. Please speak clearly and argue with logic.
Shuba Lall
ModernBrain
None
Beau Larimer
Stockdale High School
6 rounds
Alex Larsen
Willamette High School
None
Karen Law
Able2Shine
None
Rin Le
Stockdale High School
None
Last changed on
Sat January 13, 2024 at 4:44 AM PDT
Hey everyone!
I am currently a master's student studying Math & CS at Stanford, and a member of the Stanford Debate Society. I have 3 years of competitive experience in Speech competing for Monta Vista High School, with championships at NSDA Nationals, Berkeley, and James Logan.
While I have the most experience with spontaneous events, I am familiar with platform events as well. I have never competed in the interpretation events, but they are generally my favorite to judge.
Impromptu: I will judge your speech based on delivery and content, with both weighed roughly equally. Generally, while good delivery will place in you in the top half of the round, great content is what will ultimately get you the 1. For delivery, fluency is top priority. Try to have fun and make jokes if appropriate - impromptu shouldn't be boring. Regarding content, make sure your examples are both unique and relevant to the topic at hand. While talking about prepared material can be effective, reciting a canned speech is not.
Extemporaneous: I will flow your speech, weighing content over delivery (though both are important). In particular, I expect a clear evidence-based argument that features your personal analysis. Signpost as much as possible; structure and clarity help me understand your points. Try to pick quality, unbiased sources and use them with integrity (I would rather you omit the exact month/date of an article than make up a date on the spot). Above all, make sure you are really answering the question that you are being asked to answer!
Original: For original speeches, my main judging criteria is the quality of the argument put forward by the speech and how effectively it is conveyed (in both diction and delivery). The most effective speeches will be clear, well-structured, and evidence-driven. Speeches should offer new insights that are not already obvious to the average audience member. To me, humor is important in maintaining the audience's attention - jokes should be well planned and well delivered. Delivery should be confident and compelling, but natural (not sounding overly scripted or polished).
Interpretation: I will focus on two main criteria in your performance: technicality (blocking, vocal performance, etc.) and story (cutting/script, scene choices). For humor, the best speeches are delivered boldly enough to garner laughs while remaining very clean in popping. For dramatic, all components of the performance should contribute to the story rather than be included simply for the sake of drama (ex. screaming). For duo, the above applies with an extra emphasis on the interaction between the two partners (cleanliness and coordination is key here).
Looking forward to seeing your speeches, and best of luck! :)
Juno Lee
North Hollywood High School
Last changed on
Wed February 7, 2024 at 1:00 PM PDT
He/Him pronouns, email is junolee914@gmail.com. Even if you don't spread, I recommend you share at least your constructive. If you don't like the idea of people having your case, you can always share on Google Docs, turn off downloading, then kick them off the document after. Trust me, they don't have time to copy your case in round. If you don't it won't be held against you.
If I HAD to choose, I am a tech > truth judge that will switch to truth > tech when it becomes necessary to judge the weight of impacts based on my experiences. IF YOU WEIGH IN ROUND, I WILL LISTEN. The only time I feel like a truth > tech judge is when there is no weighing, so I am left to weigh with my own devices. This is bad. Don't do this.
You can run K's, you can run theory. If you win the K or theory debate I will vote for you, but know that I can be picky at times about either. I will not vote against you because I do not personally agree with your K or theory, but I am human and I am being honest about how it is impossible to completely separate the subjective and the objective. Please do not run disclosure theory.
Most importantly, remember that we are debaters because we argue! I am absolutely in love with clash, and seeing it in round will make me very happy. Don't just skirt around each other's points and instead engage head on with each other. All while keeping in mind that we ought to stay respectful.
tl;dr: If you weigh and extend arguments properly I will vote off of what you tell me. If not, I am forced to use my own judgement (but I want to do that as little as possible).
Madison Lee
Gunn Sr High School
None
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 6:16 AM PDT
I have judged several years for speech events and believe speech and debate is a great platform for students of all level to participate and benefit from it. Since our competitors have worked hard to share their performance with us, I try to also share something useful for them to takeaway with them when I write my ballot.
Vivian Lee
The Harker School
Last changed on
Sat February 17, 2024 at 4:49 AM MDT
if you want to add me on the email chain at leevivian859@yahoo.com
the UBER basics -
use humor, be bold, and have fun!!
Just explain links well, I am fine with wonky arguments as long as they're logical, & tabula rasa
if you use racist, ableist, sexist language I will be very upset
please don't interrupt your partner in cross, also let your opponents answer your questions lol
I did policy, pf, speech, oh and I do british parli and speech in college at the U of U
I go by she/her/hers
pretty basic right ...
policy/debate in depth -
the K debate, I am a huge fan of it. I enjoy a good K debate, just make sure you're prepped for fw and T. I am not a huge fan of voting for T against K, but will do it if ya know needed. I think that lots of the K's I have seen this year aren't linking to the motion very well, neg in specific hasn't been linking to the affirmative . SO like please just make it a clean debate for everyone in the room.Debate is supposed to be a safe space, mentally as well. I can follow most args, I do personally believe debate should be a space to have a voice and be advantageous of this unique space ie identity politics and what not. I do not like to see identity or traits of a case/person used or commodified to win the ballot.
oh if ur alt is rage pls give me a headsup but I am still 100% okay with running it. I just wanna know ahead of time lol
Topicality- I think t debates are good, although procedurals aren't my favorite form of debate. if youre going to read t, read it offensively not for a time suck. I won't vote on it if there aren't violations or voters/reasons to prefer. easy right. oh t is always an a priori issue
t- theory I think theory is always good, it brings a little fun to debate. once again there needs to be a reason its read, not just because you wanna
politics da, if your da is a year old its prolly too old. things are changing, so these da's need to be following what is going on or being relevant.
cp - for this topic specific I don't really like the parole cp, I think courts makes more sense, but once again you do you. I am fine with whatever. so perms in this topic are a little funky, bc its still something you should do going against one.
whatever other da. like cool, I get it, go for it. Gotta go for some basics right. OHH if you read a meme da and it makes me laugh, higher speaks to you, and if its good even more kudos. (this doesn't mean you should read it because you think ill like it more or whatever, I just have this because encase YOU want to run it, that's okay)
pls do voters/rob I do listen to those and heavily weigh it out. I am fine with tag team cross x, I love performances, and clash. clash. clash.
if case goes uncontested, I usually pay heavy attention to that. make sure youre clashing with the case, why its bad, why it won't work, at least something pls.
if you have more questions about pls ask.
ok 👠still kinda simple paradigm lol I know
Yeonnu Lee
Bellevue High School
Last changed on
Fri January 19, 2024 at 12:30 PM PDT
Ask me for my paradigm before the round starts :)
Sharlene Lew
Monta Vista High School
None
Walter Li
Silver Creek High School
None
Catherine Liang
Liangyi Youth Leadership
None
Daniel Lin
Fairview HS
None
Jen Lin
The Quarry Lane School
None
Erika Linares
The Harker School
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 12:08 AM PDT
Hi I’m Erika Linares, I currently debate for CSULB, I have around 2-3 years of experience of debating policy.
Yearish at LAMDL-2 Years at CSULB
my email:erikalinares1260@gmail.com
HOW TO MAKE IT EARIER FOR ME TO VOTE FOR YOU:
- Have a clear path on how you want me to vote on what argument and why you are winning it.
- Weigh it Out: Even if you dropped an arguemnt or arn't winning it tell me as to why your argument ouwweigh thos dropped arguments.
SPREADING: You can spread as long as your clear enough to do so, while reading make sure to indicate when you are moving from arguemnt to the other, if you do start to become unclear I will say "Clear" and if its still not clear enough I won't flow it.
HOW I JUDGE:
I will start with tech to evaluate the debate and then if something is unclear I will use truth to figure it out.
BUT-
If you have a ROB or FW as to how I should evaluate the debate then I will judge you base off that.
K- When running a K make sure that the link is viable and make sense, if I can't figure out how the K links to Aff by the end of the round I will disregard it.
DA- Again have a viable link for the DA.
CP- Make sure to explain how the CP solves for the impacts that it might bring up and the impacts to the aff.
T- I am not the best at T, but if you go for T make sure you have how they violeted and standard, and why there model of debate is bad.
LD-
Don't run tricks, I am not sure as to how I should evaluate them.
David Liu
Palo Alto High School
None
Raymond Liu
St. Ignatius College Preparatory
None
Catherine Lockie
ModernBrain
None
Adam Lorimer
Acalanes High School
None
Alexander Luu
BASIS Independent Fremont(HS)
None
John Maa
Vegas Debates
2 rounds
Last changed on
Sun February 11, 2024 at 2:35 AM PDT
This is my first time judging a Speech and Debate tournament so please speak slowly and clearly. Please be respectful to your opponents during round, signposting is great, and show me WHY I should vote for you. For some background about myself I am practicing surgeon. Good luck everybody!
Abhijit Mahabal
Monta Vista High School
None
Amrita Maliwal
Eagle Independent
None
Last changed on
Mon February 26, 2024 at 2:36 AM PDT
For email chain: yilin@modernbrain.com
- I did not compete in speech and debate but have been involved in speech and debate since 2016. I’ve Judged and watched a fair amount of rounds, mostly in speech, with some in Congress and PF. Also judged a few rounds in LD and other form of debates.
- Speech and debate are such amazing activities, enjoy yourself and do your best!
- Please be respectful and kind.
- If you see me in a speech round, know that I care about authenticity, evidence, creativity, and presentation.
- If you see me in a debate round, please don’t spread, and be clear so I can understand you. Tell me where I should be flowing. Tell me why you are winning. Tell me why should I vote for you.
- Have FUN!
Tania Martinez
Clovis North High School
None
Nicole Massey
Tierra Linda Middle School
None
Erin Matheson Ritchie
San Lorenzo Valley High School
Last changed on
Sat February 3, 2024 at 12:04 PM PDT
Background: I primarily did PF in high school (as well as other speech events + Congress). Currently I'm a speech + debate coach. 3x National qualifier.
In all forms of debate, I prioritize clash and impact weighing. Tell me where to vote on the flow. Tell me how you've won your debate.
Parli: I love a good k. I dislike friv theory as it wastes time and contradicts the purpose of debate (education).
PF: Cards without valid reasoning to demonstrate how they support your argument do not prove your point. Please signpost, warrant, and weigh.
LD: I prefer a traditional approach to LD. Set up a framework that explains how your value weighs more or solves for your opponent's case. Use the framework as you weigh voters. Prioritize quality over quantity when it comes to words/speed. LD shouldn't be treated like circuit policy.
Policy: I do my best to keep up with speed, although I'm less familiar flowing policy than other debate formats. I'll consider kritiks, counterplans, and disadvantages.
Speech: I vote based on emotional authenticity, delivery, content (topic, speech cutting), organization, and blocking. I care about unique topics in platform events and believable acting + compelling character arcs in interp.
Decorum: To me, debate should be inclusive and welcoming to students of all identities and experience levels. If you make it hostile for someone, I cannot ethically vote for you, no matter the flow. Laughing at your opponents; excessively whispering during others' speeches; or making implicitly sexist, racist, or ableist arguments will affect your speaks and my ability to buy your argument. I will deduct speaker points if I encounter students from the same program running the same arguments word-for-word. Share ideas in prepared debate events, but write your own cases.
Email chains: Please add me! eritchie@slvusd.org.
Ashok Mathew
Eagle Independent
Last changed on
Sun February 11, 2024 at 12:51 PM PDT
I am a lay judge and would appreciate if you could share the speech doc before start of the debate.
Neeraj Mathur
Lynbrook HS
None
Jackson Matley
College Prep
Last changed on
Fri January 19, 2024 at 11:54 PM PDT
Debate coach. 3 year state qualifier with a focus in congress/extemp/public forum. I tend to focus on logic and argumentation first and foremost. While I appreciate good delivery, it won't overshadow analysis. I will be flowing the debate, so framework debate and dropped arguments will be noted. Try not to speak too fast, I can't give you what I can't flow.
Please give special attention to your closing speeches. Crystallize/summarize the discussion so that I can make sense of what is on my flow. I will not penalize you for every little dropped argument if they are ultimately extraneous to the debate, so please try to prioritize what is most important in the round.
Win the argument, win the round :)
Amy McCormick
Bellevue High School
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 7:38 AM PDT
https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/McCormick%2C+Amy
Larrisha McDonnough
Hastings HS
Last changed on
Mon March 11, 2024 at 2:14 PM CDT
I prefer Speechdrop, but if you insist on using an email chain, add me: fedupblackgurl@gmail.com
4/12/2022 addition: The strangest thing happened to me last weekend. I have been judging since I graduated from Lamar HS in 2006. I use similar language on my ballots in every round, and a problem has never been brought to my attention. However, two coaches at an NSDA recently complained about the language used on my ballots. I am including that language here:
Comments for *the debater*
"Do you have a strategy for reading the AC? Because you sent me 35 pages and only got through like 24. Is the strat just to literally spread as much as you can? Would it not be better to structure the case in a way where you make sure to get through what is important? For example, you read the stuff about warming, but you did not even get through the "warming causes extinction" stuff, so you do not have a terminal impact for the environmental journalism subpoint.
New cards in the 1AR?! As if you do not already have enough to deal with?! This strategy is still making no sense. And then, you sent this doc with all these cards AGAIN and did not read them all. This is so weird to do in the 1AR because the strat should be really coherent because you have so little time. This was SLOPPY work."
RFD: "I negate. This was a painful/sloppy round to judge. Both debaters have this weird strat where they just read as much stuff as they can and I guess, hope that something sticks. This round could have gone either way, and I am in the rare situation where I am not even comfortable submitting my ballot. To be clear, there was no winner in this round. I just had to choose someone. So, I voted neg on climate change because it was the clearest place to vote. I buy that we need advocacy in order to solve. I buy that objectivity decreases public interest in climate change. I buy that we need advocacy to influence climate change. I buy that "objectivity" creates right-winged echo chambers that further perpetuate climate change. These args were ineffectively handled by the Aff. The other compelling line of argumentation from the neg showed how lack of advocacy on issues like climate change harm minorities more. I think neg did a good job of turning Aff FW and showing how he linked into SV better. This round was a hot mess, but I vote neg... I guess."
If I am your judge, these are the types of ballots you will get if you give me a round that it messy and hard to adjudicate. I should not have to say this because my reputation precedes me, but ASK ANYONE. LITERALLY ANYONE. I AM NICE. I AM KIND. MY BLACK MAMA RAISED ME WELL. I show up at tournaments and hug people and smile (even people on the circuit who are known to be racially problematic and even coaches who are known to be sore losers). I am literally good to everyone because as a Black woman, I do not have the luxury of raising my voice, making demands, or throwing tantrums. Actions that coaches in other bodies with other body parts are allowed to get away with are prohibited and result in career suicide for me and humans who look like me. So, if these ballots offend you, STRIKE ME NOW. Request that I not judge you/your students NOW. Do not wait until you get the ballot back and paint me into a villain. It isn't that I will not try to make my ballots less harsh. It is that IN MY QUALIFIED OPINION and in the opinion of many other qualified coaches and judges, the ballots ARE NOT HARSH. Communication styles are largely CULTURAL. And as a Black woman, I do not think that I need to overly edit myself just to make white people comfortable or happy. I have done enough to make white people love me, and my entire life, I have adjusted to their passive and overt aggression, including the white coach who most recently told me in a call that he "better not see my ass again at a tournament." I responded with an apology text.
I love students and I love debate. I am never tired of debate. I come to tournaments happy and leave fulfilled because debate is all I have loved to do since I found it. It is (or maybe was) my safe space and my happy place. *Ask me the story of how I joined Lanier debate as a 6th grader :)* Please do a Black woman a favor, and don't treat me like the world treats me. Do not read a tenor or tone into my ballots just because they are not fluffy or favorable. Unlike a lot of judges, I am flowing (on paper -- not hiding behind my computer doing God knows what), and trying to write down every single helpful comment I can come up with (and still submitting my ballot expeditiously to keep the tournament on time). As a result, I do not always do a great job of editing my ballots to make sure they don't sting a little. But students and coaches, if I say something hurtful, find me after the round. I guarantee you that it was not intentionally hurtful. You can talk to me, and I always smile when people approach me :)
Notice the parallels between how I write in my paradigm, in the "controversial" ballot, and in the new stuff I added above. If anyone would have taken the time to read my paradigm, they would know that this is how I ALWAYS communicate.
Students, TBH, a lot of the stuff I am writing on the ballots is not even your fault. Sometimes, as coaches, we do not know things or forget to tell you things, and that is ON US, not on you.
MY ACTUAL PARADIGM IS BELOW:
I don’t know everything nor will I pretend to. Please don’t hold me to such an impossible standard. But I read; I try to keep up with you kiddos as much as I can; and I’ve made speech and debate a priority in my life since 1999. So even though I don’t know everything, I know a lot.
Before you read my paradigm, hear this: Good debate is good debate. Whatever you choose to do, do it well, starting at a foundational level. At the end of the day, just know that I’m doing my very best to choose the best debater(s)/the person/team who showed up and showed out :)
General debate paradigm:
*I do not keep time in debate rounds, and I am always ready. If you ask me if I am ready, I will ignore you*
The older I get, the less I care about tech, and the more I care about truth.
1. ARGUMENTATION: Line-by-line and big picture are two sides of the same coin. It’s crucial not to drop arguments (but I won’t make the extension or fill in the impact for you. It is your job to tell me why the drop matters w/in the larger context of the debate). At the same time, the line-by-line is a lot less useful when you don’t paint the picture of what an Aff or Neg world looks like.
2. EXTENSIONS: When extending, I like for you to extend the claim, warrant, and the impact. I’m old school that way.
3. WEIGHING: Weighing is crucial to me. A bunch of args all over the flow with no one telling me how heavily they should be evaluated is a nightmare.
4. FRAMING: I understand that not all the debates have framework per se, but do tell me which impacts to prioritize. That’s helpful.
5. VOTERS: I like voters. I’m old school in that way too.
6. SPEED: I am generally fine with any level of speed and will indicate if this becomes an issue. I do appreciate that PF is designed to be a little slower, so I would like it if you respected that.
7. SPEAKS: If you cross the line from snarky to mean, I will dock your speaks, esp if your opp is being nice and you are being mean. I will also dock your speaks if you do to much unnecessary talking (e.g., constantly asking if I am ready, saying "Threeee.... twooooo....one" and "tiiiime....staaarts....now" or any similar phrase.) Basically, just run the round and make all your words count rather than just talking to hear yourself talk or nervously rambling.
LD:
1. STYLE: I’m indifferent to/comfortable with the style of debate you choose (i.e, “traditional” v. “progressive”). This means that I’m fine with value/vc framing as well as pre-fiat “framing” args (or whatever you fancy kids are calling them these days) like ROB/ROJ args. I love a good critical argument when done well. I’m also fine with all policy-style arguments and appreciate them when properly and strategically employed.
2. FRAMING: framework isn’t a voter. It’s the mechanism I use to weigh offensive arguments. To win the round, win/establish framework first; then, tell me how you weigh under it.
3. IMPACT CALCULUS: Offense wins debate rounds. I vote on offense linked back to the standard. Weigh the impacts in both rebuttals.
Policy/CX:
1. POLICY-MAKING: generally, I vote for the team who makes the best policy.
2. TOPICALITY: While I default reasonability and rarely vote on topicality, I do appreciate a good competing interp. I will vote on topicality if your interpretation blows me away, but I do need coherent standards and voters. Don’t be lazy.
3. THEORY/KRITIKS: I’m a sucker for philosophy. Give me a well-contextualized alternative, and I’ll be eating it all up.
4. IMPACTS: I respect the nature of policy debate, and I realize that hyperbolic impacts like nuclear war and extinction are par for the course. With that said, I love being able to vote on impacts that are actually probable.
5. TOPICAL CPs: No, just no.
PUBLIC FORUM: your warrants should be explicit. Your terminal impacts should be stated in-case. You should extend terminal defense and offense in summary speech. Give voters in the final focus.
HOW TO WIN MY BALLOT: I am first and foremost a black woman. I don’t believe in speech and debate existing in an academic vacuum. If you want to win my ballot, tell me how your position affects me as a black woman existing in a colonial, white supremacist, patriarchal, capitalist, heteronormative society. Show me coherently that your advocacy is good for me, and you’ll win my ballot every time.
PUBLIC SPEAKING AND INTERP:
I judge based on the ballot criteria.
I like to see binder craft in POI.
I like a good teaser with lots of energy.
I do not like ACTING in the introductions. That should be the REAL YOU. Showcase your public speaking ability.
I like pieces to fall between 9:10-10:10 time range.
EXTEMP SPECIFICALLY:
I like a good AGD.
Restate topic verbatim.
Most important thing in extemp is directly answering the prompt.
Three main points preferred.
I like at least 2 sources per main point.
Do not get tangential.
Do not be stiff, but do not be too informal.
No colloquialisms.
STRONG ORGANIZATION (Intro, 3MPs, and a Conclusion that ties back to intro.)
I LIKE ALL THE STANDARD STUFF.
Jacob McKinley
Langham Creek
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 6:11 AM CDT
Speech Events: I look for a clear preview of your main points of analysis, integration of multiple sources, effective use of gestures and a speech clear of fluency breaks. Nonverbal cues are important and help make your analysis more effective.
interp Events: Great performances will feature clean transitions between characters that have distinct voices for unique characters. I look for students/teams that are well prepared and jive well together. Your personal analysis in the teaser should be easily tied to your piece and a greater theme throughout.
Debate: In all forms of debate I look for a clear impact calculus that sets your impacts apart from your opponents. You are safe to speak at a brisk pace but if you spread I won't be able to keep up well. I'm not a great judge for theory debates, though I understand the basics of topicality. Try your best to persuade me and I will consider any argument.
Tanish Mendki
Monta Vista High School
None
Tanaisha Mistry
Leland High School
None
Manasi Moghe
Leland High School
Last changed on
Sun February 18, 2024 at 11:51 AM PDT
I competed throughout middle and high school in Oratory and POI! Depending on the event and from my past experience, I will appropriately weigh script, physical performance, and emotional performance when I make my decisions/rankings.
Prachi Mohapatra
Independent RM
None
Maria Monreal
University
None
Last changed on
Sat February 10, 2024 at 12:46 AM PDT
Hi! My name is Jo, and I participated in primarily Lincoln Douglas debate and International Extemporaneous speech at the state and national level, and Impromptu at the state level. I have a pretty trad background (Central Valley forensics), but competed in progressive/circuit tournaments, so no issues with debate jargon in-round.
Please make sure to add me to email chains, joannmoon@berkeley.edu.Reading new cards that diverge from your constructive should also be sent throughout the round. If I or your opponents find that you are A) dismissive of someone’s identity, or B) attempt rudeness or blatant aggression when interacting, I’ll stop the round and you will lose by default, zero tolerance.
Kritiks, spreading, theory, etc. are all okay, just disclose before round. If you are able to successfully tie in Hot Cheetos to your speech, I will add one extra speaker point to your ballot.
For PF specifically, the same mostly applies, but I do appreciate clarity > spreading. Please do not run a kritik in Public Forum, it’ll impact how I judge. For Final Focus/ summary: extra brownie points if you are able to drive in the main crux of the debate and why you’ve won. I am an absolute sucker for a speech that has a clear road map of your thesis/links and crystallization! Looking at the larger picture of impacts and weighing is much more important to me than the nitty-gritty, whether your opponents dropped a small part of your speech or skimmed through your argument. Though defense in a debate is essential, when wrapping up your case, I prefer offense.
Really excited to judge all of you! At its core, debate is supposed to be an educational and fun activity. Don’t take it too seriously.
Kwodwo Moore
Silver Creek High School
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 4:29 AM PDT
kmoore@svudl.org
You don't need to be overly polite, but you also do not need to be rude. I will vote for the other team if you are blatantly disrespectful and rude with no context for it within the round.
How fast can I go?
As fast as you want while remaining clear. If you must spread, don't slur the words together. If I can make out the individual words you're using, I can keep up. I'm not going to tell you if I can't keep up, that's the risk you run by spreading as fast as possible. I am usually much more in favor of a smaller amount of well supported and reasoned arguments though. Technical skill alone will not win a round judged by me, but it will play a significant factor in whether or not you win.
How does he award Speaker Points?
Purely based on who the best speaker is, which is a totally subjective system. If you can speak clearly yet quickly, maintain eye contact when appropriate and keep filler words to a minimum you'll get higher speaking points. If you can find a way to speak to me instead of at me, you'll get higher speaker points. Don't feel like you need to do anything special, I'm not stingy with Speaker Points.
What can I run in front of him?
Run whatever you want, I'll judge it based on the arguments presented to me by you and your opponent.
Anything else?
I'm a debate coach, and have debated for a few years in high school. I've been involved with the debate community in some way, shape or form for more than 10 years. Philosophical arguments are immensely appealing to me, so if you are running a Kritik I will be more than happy to follow along if you decide to get really abstract and in the weeds with it. I enjoy technical and nuanced arguments, feel free to really dive into things because I will be able to follow your train of thought and weigh it against your opponents if you do a good enough job contextualizing it and tying it into the debate. If you read evidence to me and don't spend any time analyzing the evidence and contrasting it with your opponents/telling me why I should value your evidence over theirs I will not be happy. Don't just read evidence to me and expect me to do the work.
Don't add me to the email chain as a way to ignore speaking clearly. I'm OK with being on the email chain, and if you add me I will look at the evidence. If you ASK me if I want to be on the email chain, I will more than likely say no.
Last changed on
Tue February 13, 2024 at 10:03 AM EDT
Hello!
I am a junior at UC Berkeley and have competed in speech and debate tournaments since middle school, all the way up to my junior year. I have experience in judging speech and debate, but with that said, for debaters, I ask that if you plan on spreading please send me the case. I am happy to unshare it after, but I will not be flowing a spreaded case.
Some of my past judging experiences include judging for both speech and debate at Middle School State Championships, and the Berkeley Invitational.
Roberto Muñoz
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Grethel Muralles
Granada Hills Charter High School
Last changed on
Sun January 21, 2024 at 3:54 AM PDT
I am a lay judge only familiar with traditional debate. So, I am not comfortable with fast spreads.
Please make sure you’re being respectful of other competitors. I understand that debates can get intense and heated, but remember: attack the argument not the competitor.
gmuralles4@gmail.com
Inderpreet Mushiana
Interlake HS
Last changed on
Sat January 13, 2024 at 11:19 AM PDT
I have no preferences other than the following: be respectful of your peers and speak clearly.
Nimi Nair
Archbishop Mitty
None
Dooheui Nam
Mountain View High School
None
Lisa Naudi
La Costa Canyon High School
None
Girish Navalgundkar
Monta Vista High School
None
Narasimha Nelluri
Monta Vista High School
None
Rajyalakshmi Nimmagadda
Brooks Debate Institute
None
Janine O'Neill
St. Ignatius College Preparatory
None
My Kim Ong
Los Altos High School
Last changed on
Sat February 17, 2024 at 6:40 AM PDT
Biography:
I did too much ofPF, Congress, and Extemp. Currently a law school student and PF varsity coach for MVLA.
Judging Philosophy: Tech > truth
I'm down for anything as long as it's warranted and linked properly. Please do impact analysis/weighing to make my life easier. The more messy a round is, the more likely my flow becomes the wild west. Strike me if you don't want to do terminal link work.
Growing List of Pet Peeves:
- Even tho I'm tech over truth, if you break evidence ethics, either drop the card or it's an auto-drop from me. I don't really care about paraphrasing but will evaluate paraphrasing theory.
- Defense is not sticky.
- Don't make evidence calls longer than they should be.
- I'm good with speed and if I can't keep up, I'll say "clear".
- Add me to the email chain. I'll disclose my email in round.
- I make faces, I'm sorry.
- In varsity: I don't time because it slows my flow, but please flag overtime. In JV/Novice: I will time and give hand signals if needed!
- I like a spicy debate with clash so please try your best to create clash.
- I half (don't really) listen to crossfire so if it's important, bring it up in speech.
- Please be kind to your opponents.
- Don't try to extend everything in summary and final focus, collapsing is your friend. If you go for everything and all your extensions and links are surface level, I WILL NOT give you access to your impacts/args.
- Please have a basic level of round etiquette. If you do not know what this is, please ask me or I will heavily dock speaks.
- Good theory and Ks are aight. Bad/poorly done theory/Ks are an auto drop. TW stuff is my least favorite to evaluate (this means don't run it).
- To get access to your impacts -> you need to provide me the terminal link and it's not enough to be a surface-level link/card read.
- Using debate language inaccurately is cringe/a speaks dock.
- I usually disclose right away and if I don't, that means the round was messy and I have to clean up the flow (that's a bad sign).
Maya Origel
Westridge School
None
Min Ouyang
Able2Shine
None
Yasmin Padilla
Immaculate Heart High School
None
Shreya Pai
Canyon Crest Academy
None
Joseph Pang
Lynbrook HS
None
Ritu Parekh
Dougherty Valley High School
None
Sejal Parikh
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Sun January 7, 2024 at 1:32 PM PDT
I really value the amount of creativity, preparation and effort that goes into the activity of debate and speech competitions, and am always looking forward to seeing the new perspectives that students from diverse backgrounds have to contribute to the ongoing discussion.
Although most of my experience comes from judging Congress events, the elements I look for and highly value in speeches remain constant across the board.
- first and foremost, an environment of mutual respect in which competitors maintain a professional demeanor is of utmost importance
- ensure that you clearly articulate your arguments (any generic argumentation that does not contribute to the overall point or "beats around the bush" should be avoided)
- strong public speaking skills, including, but not limited to varying tones, hand gestures, confident delivery, and eye contact have huge value
- a normal rate of speaking is greatly preferred, as it allows me to concurrently take notes
- out-of-the-box, eccentric, and creative ideas catch my attention!
Last changed on
Sun January 28, 2024 at 1:47 PM PDT
I'm a Berkeley student with 0 experience. Don't spread and be clear. Please over explain things.
Add me to the email chain @ rorapark1672@gmail.com
Ashajyothi Parupalli
Monta Vista High School
None
Sophia Patel
Miramonte High School
None
Sudhir Pathak
Monta Vista High School
None
Swati Patil
BASIS Independent Fremont(HS)
None
AJ Pena
Flintridge Preparatory
None
Fernanda Perez Aguirre
Orosi High School
None
Hari Perumal
Monta Vista High School
None
Prince Philip
Vista Del Lago High School
Last changed on
Fri February 16, 2024 at 8:08 AM PDT
I've been judging speech events since 2016.
For me, having clarity and to-the-point communication style matters. Leverage those effective oral presentation skills, with the use of pacing, voice modulation, strong and effective eye contact, meaningful pauses and I look for body language that amplifies your voice. Connect with your audience and exuberate confidence
Les Phillips
The Nueva School
Last changed on
Wed January 17, 2024 at 3:38 AM PDT
LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM
I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)
If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.
NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and register distress if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.
Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.
Teams don't get to decide that they want to skip grand cross (or any other part of the round).
I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses). Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. I am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF. I will default to NSDA rules re: no plans/counterplans, absent a very compelling reason why I should break those rules.
LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM
I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments, and most recent NPDI tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. Once upon a time people though I was a topicality hack, and I am still more willing to pull the trigger on that argument than on other theoretical considerations. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary.
I will obey tournament/league rules, where applicable. That said, I very much dislike rules that discourage or prohibit reference to evidence.
I was trained in formats where the judge can be counted on to ignore new arguments in late speeches, so I am sometimes annoyed by POOs, especially when they resemble psychological warfare.
Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?
When I operate inside a world of fiat, I consider which team makes the world a better place. I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. "Fiat is an illusion" is not exactly breaking news; you definitely don't have to debate in that world. I'm receptive to "the role of the ballot is intellectual endorsement of xxx" and other pre/not-fiat world considerations.
LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM
For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a debater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.
Kristen Plant
Miramonte High School
Last changed on
Mon February 19, 2024 at 12:29 PM PDT
Here's some information about me per the NSDA Judge Paradigm Guidelines:
- Since 2008, I've proudly served as the teacher and head coach of the Miramonte High School Public Speaking program in Orinda, CA, USA. Our co-curricular program focuses on competitive Speech, Congress, and Public Forum Debate. I competed in speech for Miramonte High School, Class of 1996, and my specialty was Humorous Interpretation! I enjoy judging several times a year, often including the Cal Invitational and NSDA Nationals!
- I believe Speech & Debate should be accessible to a general audience. I prefer SLOW rate of delivery and to AVOID jargon/technical language. When debaters speed-read, I cannot keep up.
- My personal note-taking during the round involves writing down key arguments. I take notes throughout, but I do NOT keep a rigorous flow.
- I value argument and style. Clear communication, accessible by a general audience, should be the priority. Off-time road maps are discouraged.
- The criteria I consider when assessing a debate round: "In short, Public Forum Debate stresses that speakers must appeal to the widest possible audience through sound reasoning, succinct organization, credible evidence, and clear delivery. A team should not be penalized for failing to understand [their] opponent’s unclear arguments." (2009 NFL Guide to Public Forum Debate)
- I find topical, logical, and narrative arguments more persuasive than theory. Do not assume your audience knows the topic, much less specific cards.
- We must embody the NSDA Honor Code and pledge to uphold the highest standards of humility, equity, integrity, respect, leadership, and service in pursuit of excellence. I reward honorable conduct as it enhances the debate and helps me to focus on learning.
Thanks for your participation! I am grateful to continue my learning by judging speech and debate!
Suma Potluri
Saratoga HS
None
Devi Prasanna
Eagle Independent
None
Michelle Pratt
El Cerrito
None
Thomas Quinnild
Miramonte High School
None
Lucca Raabe
George Washington HS
None
Srikant Radhakrishnan
Sacramento Waldorf High School
Last changed on
Fri February 16, 2024 at 2:37 PM PDT
The tenets for nailing my ballot are:
- Clarity - In structure & expression
- Creativity - In thought and rendition
- Energy - In inspiration and transformation
Callum Rangan
La Salle College Preparatory
None
Cyrus Rangan
La Salle College Preparatory
Last changed on
Mon January 15, 2024 at 12:06 PM PDT
Speech:
Extensive experience competing in HI and DI, and judging in all forms of IE.
Extemp/IMP: Please have a thesis statement. Don't simply answer your question "Yes/No", and then jump to your points. I need to hear WHY you are answering Yes/No in a well-crafted thesis statement.
Oratory/Advocacy/INFO: You're here to teach! Teach me!
Interp: There is a difference between true interpretation and simply making somebody laugh (HI) or cry (DI). Good "Interpers" know the difference.
Debate:
***** PROFESSIONALISM AND COURTESY ARE OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE TO ME *****
***** IF YOU TREAT YOUR OPPONENTS WITH DISRESPECT, SPEAKER POINTS (AND PERHAPS RFD) WILL BE IMPACTED SEVERELY *****
***** YOU ARE HERE TO ATTACK ARGUMENTS, NOT PEOPLE *****
I am experienced as a competitor in Policy and Lincoln-Douglas. I am experienced as a judge in Policy, Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, and Parliamentary. See below for more info.
General: Debate is about your ability to understand, analyze, weigh, educate, and persuade in a contest of oral communication. Show me that you have developed these skills and abilities. I want to hear well-constructed arguments & reasoning, supported by relevant evidence and analysis. Depth means much more to me than breadth. During refutations, I want to hear true clash and expansion, not simple repetition of previously stated arguments. During final rebuttals, I want to hear a thoughtful bottom line -- the ability to sum up an entire debate is a very important skill. I can still make a decision without any of that, but good debaters will always demonstrate that they have learned the above skills.
PF/Policy/Parli: IF YOU SPREAD, I WILL PUT MY PEN DOWN, AND I WILL NOT RECORD YOUR ARGUMENTS OR EVIDENCE. Your speaker points will also reflect poorly. "Spread debate" teaches you (and me) nothing more than how fast you can speak and how fast I can write. The "spread" dynamic exists nowhere in the real world, except at debate tournaments. As such, I find spreading to be artificial and unproductive. If you never spoke at all, and simply pasted your cards onto a communal flow sheet with a series of arrows, you would reach the same endpoint as spread debate. So, please don't spread. Give me an outstanding LAY debate.
Lincoln-Douglas: I understand that these are values debates. But I see no utility in "stating your values" at the top of the speech (i.e. "My values for this debate are quality of life and egalitarianism.... now on to my arguments"). These opening statements mean very little, and I never write them down. I want to hear your case first. I want to hear solid background, arguments, and evidence, all of which SHOULD organically convince me of the values you support. You wouldn't make such empty opening statements about values in the real world, so I don't need to hear them in your speech. Show me how your arguments support your values, not the other way around.
Ajay Rawal
Dougherty Valley Bridge
Last changed on
Sun February 25, 2024 at 9:39 AM PDT
I am a parent judge with 5 years of experience.
I expect the participants to speak slow but most importantly clearly
I want to understand the debate so explaining arguments help me understand why you should win more.
Respect other participants and I will respect you
add me to any email chains
ajayrawal@hotmail.com
Hemam reddy
The Quarry Lane School
None
Anjie Riley
Miramonte High School
None
Elizabeth Riley
Redlands High School
None
Christian Rodriguez
St. Ignatius College Preparatory
Last changed on
Tue January 9, 2024 at 7:19 AM PDT
Hello there,
I'm a religious studies teacher at St. Ignatius College Prep in San Francisco, CA. Thank you for taking the time to look at my paradigm.
When I judge Lincoln-Douglas debates, I look for a number of things, especially:
-Value and Criterion. I prize a competitor's ability to connect their arguments back to a sound value and criterion. I seek logical consistency. An opponent would do well to highlight inconsistencies in the construction and application of the value(s) and criterion. Framework is key to any good debate.
-Civility. I look to see if you are treating your opponent with civility and respect. I most certainly welcome lively and passionate debate as long as it stays clear from rudeness, haranguing, or mean-spiritedness. You are debating a real human person and they should be treated with dignity and respect.
-Attentive listening. Demonstrate to me that you have listened to your opponent's arguments and are willing to engage in thoughtful dialogue with them. Avoiding their arguments indicates to me that you may not have listened attentively to your opponent. Respond to your opponent and demonstrate how your argument is better.
-Measured speech (no spreading). This often comes across as a disingenuous tactic that inhibits your opponents from being able to actually address the merits of your case. I should not have to have a copy of your case in front of me to help me decipher what you are trying to say. Your public presentation skills are important to me as your judge.
When I judge Public Forum Debates debates, I look for the civility, attentive listening, and measured speech mentioned above as well as:
-Solid constructions. Set the foundation for the rest of your debate with strong contentions that have a clear connection to the rest of your debate. Framework is important for me as a judge.
-Appeals to ethics or values. As a religious studies teacher, I greatly appreciate seeing a common philosophical throughline in argumentation. Similar to the above point, values, frameworks, and ethics set a solid foundation for the rest of the debate.
-No frivolous asks for cards. If you do not plan on directly referencing something in your opponents' cards or raising a legitimate concern with me as the judge, please do not waste time asking for them. This often appears to be a sly way of taking off-time prep.
David Rosas
Redlands High School
None
Nicholas Rougely
St. Ignatius College Preparatory
None
Jaya Rupanagunta
Monta Vista High School
None
Jade Ryser
Chaminade College Prep
None
Tasneem Sabri
Rise Academy
None
Manisha Sahay
Monta Vista High School
None
Rebel Saint Lilith
The Harker School
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 6:39 AM PDT
I care about argumentation and analysis more than most all else. I emphasize the flow, and care about the credibility of evidence. I'm not the biggest fan of theory debate for the sake of theory debate. I prefer topic centric debate.
Mariana Saldana
West
None
Rocio Sanchez
Kerman High School
None
Jacob Sandoval
Orosi High School
None
Sunitha Sankar
Monta Vista High School
Last changed on
Sat February 10, 2024 at 4:08 PM EDT
Hello! Please speak loud and clearly. Make sure not to bring up new points in your second speech and focus on the impacts on your last speech. Make sure to have good evidence and warrants to back up your points. Finally, don’t be rude to your opponents or talk over them aggressively!
Srikanth Santhanakrishnan
Monta Vista High School
None
Devin Sarno
George Washington HS
None
Shital Sarvakar
Mission San Jose High School
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 5:45 PM EDT
I am Parent Judge and I have experience in judging LD and PF for about 3 years. I like crisp and clear speaking during debate. Fast or slow does not matter as long as I can understand. I prefer to listen to actual facts rather than just theory. Please be respectful of your opponents. Off-time roadmaps helps me while judging and I believe will help the candidates also from speaker point of view.
Please introduce yourself and introduce topic in 1-2 sentence .
Arguments- Back them up with good evidence, data , analysis.
Cross fire- Be respectful and stick to the points
Speaker points - Clear concise with moderate pace speaking , good performance in crossfire will get highest speaker points.
Enjoy debate and have fun.
Please reach out to me if you have any questions.
Divya Satish
Monta Vista High School
None
Mayur Savla
Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy
None
Ethan Scheiner
Miramonte High School
None
Christina Scott
Glacier Peak High School
None
Sudhanshu Sethi
Monta Vista High School
None
Mia Sevier
Fullerton Union High School
None
PARUL SHANDILYA
Redwood MS
None
Thiyagu Shanmuga
Westwood
Last changed on
Mon February 5, 2024 at 5:40 PM CDT
Debate Experience: Nil
Judging Experience: Nil
Not a fan of speed speech, reading off screens, nor of imprecise/uncertain/conflicting ideas such as
personal gender pronouns, feminism, etc., nor a speech full of anecdotal evidences.
While judging I would value:
1. Clear communication of ideas
2. Quotes with full origins and qualifications clearly mentioned
3. Quality and conciseness of speech over quantity and length
4. Originality of ideas and arguments
5. Respect given to judges, opponents, and the tournament
Having lived better part of life in a different culture on the other side of the world, may not get slang and pop culture terms promptly and/or properly :(.
SIVARAJ SHANMUGHAM
Eagle Independent
None
Nidhi Sharma
Monta Vista High School
None
Sushil Sharma
Mission San Jose High School
Last changed on
Sat February 10, 2024 at 12:37 PM PDT
PERSONAL BACKGROUND:
I am a parent judge for Public Forum. Despite my lack of judging experience, I would say that I am a lay judge with plenty of real world experience. This means that I vote for teams that are able to clearly persuade me with their evidence and impacts.
WHAT I LOOK FOR:
- I appreciate clear, structured communication.
- I prefer teams that are able to tell me why they are winning on their case and their opponent's case.
- Please weigh correctly: There is a higher probability of me voting for you if you make the explicit comparative between your and your opponent's impacts and evidence. Please flesh out your weighing instead of just using buzzwords.
- Roadmaps/Signposting is very helpful. This means that I appreciate debaters that tell me what they are talking about in their speech and where they are during their speech.
GENERAL INFO:
- I am OK with any speaking speed but prefer teams that have every piece of analysis mean something and contribute to the round than a team that only speaks fast.
- I don't time your speeches, so feel free to time your own and your opponent's speech.
- Please be respectful of your opponents & don't rudely interrupt them. (Otherwise I will dock your speaker points).
All the very best & have fun!
Helena Shen
Able2Shine
None
chialin shih
Monta Vista High School
None
Sonali Shrivastava
Notre Dame San Jose
None
Sonia Singhal
Lynbrook HS
Last changed on
Sat February 17, 2024 at 6:26 AM PDT
speak clearly
Amarnath Singireddy
Northwood High School
None
Radha Sivaramakrishnan
Monta Vista High School
None
TaNiyia Smith
College Prep
Last changed on
Tue January 9, 2024 at 5:27 AM PDT
I am not a flow judge really, so ideally if we can steer away from spreading that would be preferred. Can definitely have some speed but obviously within reason. If you have your case in a Speechdrop that I can follow that would make my life a lot easier however not a requirement. In terms of in-round behavior not a big fan of passive-aggressive behavior (i.e. snide remarks you may think are said under your breath but everyone can hear you) so please be polite, and play fair. Any problematic or ill-mannered behavior will cause me to give the ballot to your competitor.
Lakshmi Soman
Monta Vista High School
None
Kalyani Sridhar
Washington High School
None
Garima Srivastava
Eagle Independent
None
Amy Stanley
Milpitas High School
None
Joshua Stinson
Mira Loma High School
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:48 PM PDT
For Policy I am largely a policy and stock issues judge. While I am not an absolutist (meaning if you're not 100% on these I reject your case) I do largely want your case to fulfill the burdens of the topic within a reasonable plausibility or ability. This means I want clear eloquent presentations and do not like arguments that are NOT related to the actual topic.
I then focus on the policy itself looking at the advantages and disadvantages of a case. This means that if you like to throw in "game theories" those will be entertained if they accept and help argue the topic and the team can prove that "blowing up the moon" will have a net positive impact on the case.
If you are going to spread, then you should email be a copy of your case so that I can look for the issues you are arguing.
Andrew Sun
Monta Vista High School
None
Shri Sundaram
BASIS Independent Silicon Valley
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 11:44 PM PDT
I judge using the SRROD framework.
1. Structure - whether the speaker opened well, supported the topic with good examples and closed it out well
2. Relevance of the topic - is it relevant to the times we live in?
3. On how Relatable the topic is - i.e. can I relate to the topic?
4. Originality - how unique is this topic compared to the rest?
5. Delivery - use of effective oral presentation skills (volume, diction, speed of delivery, vocal variety), movement, use of props etc.
I put my analysis in a spreadsheet to show how I came up with an objective score.
I usually add separate feedback for each participant 1:1.
Kathryn Swan
George Washington HS
None
mercedes tamayo
Flintridge Preparatory
None
Sivaranjani Tappita
Monta Vista High School
None
Rohan Tawade
Archbishop Mitty
None
Neha Thakur
Notre Dame San Jose
None
Indumathi Thiyagarajan
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Fri February 9, 2024 at 3:03 PM PDT
I am the parent judge and this is my 2nd year judging speech. I value well-structured cases, clear arguments, and explicit weighing. I like empirical evidence rather than emotion. I like a well thought out/planned case that makes sense logically - I like to connect the dots.
Kayla Thoen
The Harker School
None
Blake Thomas
Los Gatos
None
Manu Thomas
Eagle Independent
None
Rohan Tirumala
Archbishop Mitty
None
Aini Tjauw
Fullerton Union High School
None
Sangeetha Toju
Foothill High School
Last changed on
Sat February 17, 2024 at 4:16 PM PDT
If I have to be a Parent Judge, I will look for the relevance of the Speech and Debate Topics and I would like to follow the instructions given by Speech Trainers.
I am more curious to see how students are delivering speeches from a good audience perspective.
I am a Dancer and I have been worked as judge in different dance events. I have also participated in Speech Clubs to support my work in sales related presentations.
Last changed on
Sun February 11, 2024 at 12:02 PM PDT
Add me to the chain! Gmail @ elligenetolentino
About Me
Hi, I go by Elli (pronounced Ellie, he/him). I competed for about three years at Mountain House High & graduated in 2020. While I primarily competed in speech, I have some rudimentary experience in PF and LD (rhetoric at best). Please consider me a curious lay judge! Nonetheless, I'm very excited to learn prog debate :)
I'm currently pursuing concept art in the game industry (@zero.elli on IG i need engagement tysm), and as such, please assume I am unaware of the squo/current state of affairs.
(edit for Cal) I judged Policy last month, and I am aware of some topic-specific jargon, but please don't inundate the round or me with terminology.
Most of what I know about debate is from my Iron 3 Silver 1 30% HS Rate ex-coach, val student & friend, Arshita Sandhiparthi.
(+0.000001 speaks if you make a Valorant reference)
I want to preface that I have a learning disorder. As someone in the midst of comprehending what I couldn't before diagnosis & treatment, I'm able to flow, but I will have a tough time keeping up.
Speech (debaters ignore)
TL;DR: Good blocking, good piece synergy = W
I used to compete in Dramatic Interpretation and limited prep (NX). I was okay, but I'm familiar with what clean, well-rehearsed blocking looks like. I believe that what place you're given in the round should not be entirely determined by the cutting of your piece, as students may not have total control over how their script is cut. That being said, this may not totally apply by outrounds, and regardless you control the timings of your performance. Emergence is powerful, and powerful speeches emerge when you can read the room and know how to navigate those 10 minutes.
I haven't competed or judged a speech round in a while, so I may not be familiar with any change in rules or what is in vogue (i.e., specific styles of popping w/ interp or whatever). I'll go by the NSDA rules. If any external interruptions do stop your speech, it won't determine your placement in the round.
If asked, I will give time signals.
Debate
O/V (I love overviews, use them)
TL;DR of the TL;DR: I have terrible working memory because of ADHD. It's in your favor to do anything that helps me understand the topography of the debate.
- If you're referencing/cross-applying cards, I recommend you reiterate the warrant and remind me what speech it came from.
- Err on the side of caution when using jargon; I'll ask you to explain what it means if necessary, but gauge what you can from this paradigm (edit: I finally understand thumpers :O).
- I lean truth because the prereqs to being tech are the capacity to flow well + being competent at impact calc.
- Spreading is fine with me; Signposting & summarizing can make or break whether I can follow. Pause after reading a card, and slow down when saying the tagline/author name.
- Feed me judge instruction!!! Tell me how to weigh, how to frame the round, and HOW TO VOTE!
Spreading/Flow
TL;DR: Give me some buffer time and pause when reading analytics/tags. Signpost! :)
I'm cool with spreading, but:
- Please do proper line-by-line, and after your speech, send out a marked doc with cards in the order you read them.
- Inevitably, I'll miss a thing or two. I'll yell "clear" if I need you to slow down. I won't dock speaks (unless you ignore my warning entirely), but I expect you to slow down and signpost.
- A simple pause does wonders. Thoroughly explain your syllogisms, pace your speeches, and you will be rewarded!
- Don't spread analytics as fast as you would a card. I’d also like you to send analytics over.
- If you're up against an inexperienced/novice team, pub-stomping via speed or theory is not the move. Your speaks and potentially the round will reflect this.
- I flow cross to read in between the lines. As I mentioned earlier, I'm a lay judge, and my schema for debate isn't up to par with your more experienced circuit K hack.
Meta-Debate
Truth/Tech
TL;DR: I will objectively retain more salient, intuitive arguments, but I'll try to override this.
I want to emphasize that clear link chains and impacts matter. Articulate, clarify, and make understanding your warrants easier so I can get a better read on where the debate's headed. That said, I attempt to be tech but end up erring truth in-round**.
Theory / F/W
TL;DR: No, I'm not going to TL;DR theory, read below :)
L + ratio + perm do the stanky leg
I think I enjoy it? Here's what I can say.
- If possible, weigh between links to fairness & education. I'm more convinced that fairness is an internal link & not an impact, but that doesn't necessarily delineate it as bad/less preferable than an impact (nuclear war can be an internal link to anything).
- AFAIK, condo is bad because of double turns, but it's devious when done well & I enjoy it for its strategic value. As with all things, be chill & don't hard abuse if you plan on running it (i.e., I'll probably buy condo bad if you run over 3 CPs, but otherwise, it's fair game)
- I like procedural arguments in general because they're easier to follow!
Defaults?
- The essentials of a default: - Condition opponents by repeating core parts of an opening - Opening looks the same, but different plays are possible - Obscure your intentions through info denial - Gather information - Maximise utility efficiency - Take map control.
- My personal favorites on Ascent:
A default w/ Killjoy turret covering bottom mid will force certain moves, i.e. on Ascent, = no cross into pizza & arches, & spawn jump peek (agent info)
Smoke on catwalk denies tiles peek, forces mid presence or util trade. You can play for these timings. I love minmaxxing any bottom mid-control.
ok seriously though
- counter-interps unless persuaded to evaluate under reasonability. Define reasonability for me!
- presumption flows neg (more critically, it flowing to less change)
Ks
I'm cool with Ks, but I require an explanation/a short thesis on what you're running if it's super niche.
my brain if you read Baudrillard (i am familiar with his lit base go crazy ahhh)
Etc.
TL;DR: Crystallize and tell me what is terminal. Make it easy for me to flow.
- Conceding/dropping arguments makes it easier to follow on flow, which is 1000% to your advantage. Rehashing a card dropped/lost during clash does not. This kind of rhetoric makes following along harder and may implicitly influence my ballot, which you don't want.
-
I plead that you write my ballot by the 2AR/2NR & from what you've collapsed(and do collapse), give me a big-picture overview.
-
I will not keep time; I expect the debaters to do that. I'm usually chill on this, but I'll drop an auto-loss for any clear abuse.
**note: As to why I lean truth, I believe this to be an unintentional byproduct of my disability. The cognitive load of weighing can be intrinsically complex for me (I speak impact algebra, not impact calculus), so just know that how you weigh may not supersede how you clash or how intuitive your argument is.
yes here's my card brah, I'm linking a research article and cut it just for you:
"To save mental effort, individuals with ADHD might not base their decisions on a comparison of EVs but use easier decision-making heuristics instead. Using heuristics, parts of information are ignored to increase efficiency (Gigerenzer & Gaissmaier, 2011)."
Samantha Trad
Redlands High School
None
Carl Trig
ModernBrain
None
hiten trivedi
Dougherty Valley Bridge
None
Melanie Troncoso
Democracy Prep Bronx Prep
None
Norberto Troncoso
Democracy Prep Bronx Prep
None
Alice Tu
Liangyi Youth Leadership
Last changed on
Sun January 21, 2024 at 5:00 AM PDT
Hello debaters,
As your judge I value clear, concise and polite speakers. Content and presentation are both equally valuable, and I will be carefully observing the quality of your speeches and questions asked. During crossfire, I expect questions and answers to be straight to the point.
Kevin Uhlig
Cherry Creek High School
None
Natasha Utterback
Cherry Creek High School
None
Manisha Vajha
Foothill High School
None
Last changed on
Thu January 18, 2024 at 8:35 PM EDT
Hey everyone! My name is Rose Velasquez and I am a freshman debater at St. Mary's College of California. I currently do Parliamentary debate. I did debate all throughout high school and also have experience in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, Big Questions, and World Schools. I also competed in IE's and have experience in Impromptu, Original Oratory, and Extemporaneous(IE/NE).
I will disclose after the round unless the tournament has specifically requested against it. I will give feedback for both sides. Feel free to ask any questions about the round or debate in general.
Respect is huge and must be maintained throughout the round. Of course, passion is a good thing, but name-calling is never acceptable. If I feel that one side is being abusive then that will affect my decision. Please refrain from looking at or pointing to your opponents. I (the judge) am the deciding factor so feel free to look at me or into the crowd(I understand some people have issues with eye contact and that will never be something that affects my decision).
In regards to speed and spreading I am not against it as long as your words are clear and understandable. If your opponents ask you to slow down please do so. I do flow so please be aware of that. Organizing your case, letting the room know your order, and keeping your sheets organized is appreciated so that I know what you will be addressing in your speech.
I don't mind Kritiques. I think they are useful to the debate space. However, with that being said I need clear linkage and topicality in order to vote for a K. If it truly has nothing to do with the topic and the assumption the topic is making is not clear it will most likely not be what I am voting for. In regards to responding to K's, if educational quality and topicality are your only responses, and it is clear that the K is actually topical then you have inherently made no response to the K and I will most likely vote for it. If a perm is brought up again the K, there needs to be a clear reason as to why the perm CANNOT happen.
Please state a ROB or ROJ so that I have a base for my decision, otherwise, I will default to Net Benefits. Please state your clear impacts. HOW does one thing lead to the other and WHY is it good or bad? Carry your impacts all the way through the round. In your last speech please clearly go over the main voter issues of the debate and collapse. These are the most important issues and areas you have won in and will have a huge impact on my final decision.
I am fine with topicality as long as it is not excessively abusive and makes sense.
Otherwise, I don't have any specific preferences on strats. Just make sure you are having fun and getting better! :)
Abhi Velekkat
Evergreen Valley
None
George Voon
Leland High School
None
Amy Wang
Leland High School
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 11:00 AM PDT
Speech alumni (Platform and Interp).
Please make sure everything is very clear (sign-posting, road maps, etc.).
Don't speak too fast.
Best case scenario: you write my RFD for me :)
Respect everyone's pronouns, respect your opponents, respect your judge(s).
Looking forward ta a good round!
Flora Wang
Mountain View High School
Last changed on
Sat February 17, 2024 at 2:33 PM PDT
Email chain (yes): talk to me before round.
I debated (2020-2023), judged (many rounds), and currently coach Lincoln-Douglas. I prefer not to disclose personal information online beyond what might be immediately helpful for the competitor, so feel free to talk to me before the round if you have any further questions!
Overview
-
Call me “judge” in-round, thanks
-
Wear a mask if the tournament says you have to. I will vote where you tell me to, but I will not shake your hand.
-
Be ethical with speech times, prep time, and evidence. At the end of each speech, you are granted a “grace period” to finish your sentence, not to make a whole new argument. You are granted 4 minutes of prep (LD). Here is the NSDA Evidence Guide. Don’t steal prep by taking forever to find a card. Cheating is not cute or quirky, and I will not hesitate to punish to the full extent as outlined by CHSSA/NSDA rules.
- Be mindful of potential triggers and sensitive topics and DO NOT be offensive (racist, homophobic, sexist, the list goes on).
Traditional LD
I will not hesitate to drop anyone who chooses to make the round inaccessible (spreading out the opponent) or engage in other debate practices that would not be understandable to a reasonable person. This is non-negotiable.
-
Keep your off-time roadmap to less than 15 words. Please. Just tell me where to flow.
-
There’s a fine line between being cheeky and being annoying during cross. Feel free to do the former, not the latter, I can tell the difference. If you’re confused, ask.
-
An argument comprises a claim, warrant, and impact, not just a claim.
-
Write the ballot for me – tell me why you win.
Circuit LD
-
Send a speech doc and go slower than you usually do – it’s been a while and listening to spreading has always made me very tired. If I miss something, it’s nice to have the doc to reference. Slow down especially on signposting, taglines, and analytics.
-
I would prefer if the round remained related to resolution – things like friv theory and Ks unrelated to the debate are a bit harder for me to vote on, though possible.
-
Avoid using heavy progressive debate jargon
Other Events
Treat me like I’m a parent judge. Prioritize clarity over speed, and explain the argument and reasoning to me. Assume I’m not familiar with the topic lit. Please don’t be rude in crossfire.
Have fun and good luck!
Last changed on
Fri January 19, 2024 at 2:12 PM PDT
I judge based on the following criteria:
1) Enunciation
2) movements and facial expressions - how do they complement your speech
3) enthusiasm
4)is your topic/speech relatable? relevant?
Shuyi Wang
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 11:56 PM PDT
I have been judging speech events since 2017 and have coached students who focus in Original Oratory, Informative, and Impromptu. Prior to my U.S. high school speech judging experiences, I was professionally trained in pubic speaking in my native language; my career involves a high amount of marketing content development, corporate/executive communications, and public relations.
In speech writing, I look for a clear roadmap, strong arguments backed by research (I don't need to agree with your statistical findings or your conclusion, but your findings should fully support your viewpoints), and pragmatic solutions for issues you identified.
For interpretation events, especially those that compose of multiple literature works, I hope to not feel that the selections are pieced together. In other words, the structure should be logical, cohesive, and seamless.
For speech delivery, I look for genuine emotions that help me relate to the urgency of your topic: why is it important now and why your viewpoints, research, and life experiences are the right ones to help your audience understand it holistically. I also appreciate speakers who are able to present with their unique styles, even if there are parts where further polishing is needed.
Over the years I've heard a good number of strong speakers who sound just like Haris Hosseini or JJ Kapur in one of their NSDA speeches. While I admire these students' technical excellence, I also feel that their speeches inevitably become less personal and less distinctive in my ears. It's a fine balancing act between finding inspiration from great speakers/speeches and developing your unique voice.
Wei Wang
QD Learning
None
Alexandre Widman
Orosi High School
Last changed on
Sat February 17, 2024 at 5:49 AM PDT
Hello there. I am definitely more of a lay judge. If you want to spread, go ahead, but I wouldn't recommend it. I will flow what I hear and that's it. Spouting evidence just to spout evidence doesn't do it for me. Make sure to include some type of analysis. Off-time roadmaps are fine, but don't use it to make an off-time argument. Blatant disrespect will tank your speaker points. I am not a fan of K debates, and I do not allow tag team cross X. :)
Rachel Wilczewski
Sam Barlow HS
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 6:44 AM PDT
Background
I was a high school and college policy debater in the 1980's. I have taught policy debate for 21 years both in California and Oregon. I have coached several policy teams to nationals. I love this form of debate.
Paradigm
I am a real world policy maker judge, who is somewhat traditional. I look to see who advocates for most viable and beneficial policy. I am a recovering stock issues judge.
What Makes Me Smile
I like to see an organized flow, with lots of analysis connecting evidence to claims. I also like to see a fun spirited debate, where debaters are polite to one another and are in this activity to learn, not just to win.
Speed
I can flow a fast debate, but prefer communication over speed. I find that most policy debaters who spew, can't really handle the speed they are attempting and therefore lose their judge and opponents, ultimately rendering this communication event moot. However, if you must race through your arguments, at least be slow and clear on the tags.
K's
I do not like Kritiks. I will listen to them and weigh them against other arguments on the flow, but overall am not a big fan. If you run a K, make sure to fully explain your philosophical position and don't run positions that will bite your K.
T
I will vote on T if not used as a time suck. "If you run it, go for it, don't kick out of 4 T's in your last rebuttal."
Tag Team CX
I don't mind tag team cx; however, I award speaker points based on your ability to ask and answer questions, so if one partner is "tooling" another, then one of you will suffer point wise. I like to see that both partners are knowledgable about the topic and debate theory and get disgruntled when one partner will not allow the other partner a chance to answer any questions.
Flex Prep
What? Really? No!
Flashtime
I don't count flash time as prep time, unless it becomes ridiculous.
David Wilder
Baymonte Christian School
None
Anna Wolde
Athenian School
None
Maggie Woodward
Flintridge Preparatory
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 3:30 AM PDT
I have been either competing, coaching, & judging for 20 years. My coaching expertise is primarily in Congress, Original Oratory, & Informative Speaking, though I have experience with any/all events. I am a coach at Flintridge Preparatory & The Westridge School, and Curriculum Director of OO/Info at the Institute for Speech & Debate (ISD). I believe that the Speech & Debate events are far more complementary than we acknowledge, & that they’re all working toward the same pedagogical goals. Because debate is constantly changing, I value versatility & a willingness to adapt.
PF: I'd rather not need to read any docs/evidence in order to decide how I'm voting, but if it comes down to that, I will (begrudgingly) scrutinize your evidence. Feel free to run any experimental/non-traditional arguments you want, but please make these decisions IN GOOD FAITH. Don't shoehorn theory in where it doesn't apply & don't run it manipulatively. I am admittedly not techy-tech girl, but I am always listening comprehensively & flowing.
In Congress rounds, I judge based on a competitor’s skill in the following areas: argumentation, ethicality, presentation, & participation.
Argumentation: Your line of reasoning should be clear & concise; in your speeches & your CX, you should answer the questions at hand. Don’t sacrifice clarity for extra content – there should be no confusion regarding why the bill / resolution results in what you’re saying. You can make links without evidence, but they must be logically or empirically sound.
Ethicality: Evidence is borrowed credibility; borrow honestly. A source should necessarily include its date & the publication in which it appeared, & should not be fabricated. No evidence is better than falsified evidence. Additionally, competitors should remember that although you may not be debating real legislation, the issues at hand are very real, as are the people they affect. An ethical debater does not exploit real world tragedy, death, or disaster in order to “win” rounds.
Presentation: Congressional Debate is the best blend of speech skills & debate ability; what you say is just as important as how you say it. The best speakers will maintain a balance of pathos, ethos, & logos in both their content & delivery style. Rhetoric is useful, but only if its delivery feels authentic & purposeful.
Participation: Tracking precedence & recency is a good way to participate – it helps keep the PO accountable, & demonstrates your knowledge of Parliamentary Procedure. Questioning is an integral part of Congress; I like thoughtful, incisive questioning that doesn’t become adversarial or malicious. Both your questions & your answers should be pertinent & succinct. Above all, I am a big fan of competitors who are as invested in making the chamber better as they are in bettering their own ranks. The round can only be as engaging, lively, and competitive as you make it - pettiness brings everyone down.
Kai Xiao
Monta Vista High School
Last changed on
Sat February 17, 2024 at 5:48 AM PDT
Coach for 3+ years, former competitor in platform and interp events in high school with notable top placements at Stanford, James Logan, ASU, and UKToC. Currently studying sociology and economics at UC Berkeley, so hopefully you can trust my judging qualifications :)
Largely, I look for: clear articulation of ideas, polish in delivery, flow of argument/piece
Jun Xing
Baymonte Christian School
Last changed on
Fri February 16, 2024 at 7:48 AM PDT
With 30 years of experience as a university history professor, I have developed a keen interest in judging speech and debate competitions, particularly Extemporaneous events. My approach to scoring encompasses various aspects, including content, voice, demeanor, and the use of visual aids (when applicable).
Sho Yaida
Tierra Linda Middle School
None
Breena Yancey-Nakamura
Valencia High School
None
Ellie Yang
Mountain View High School
Last changed on
Sat March 9, 2024 at 3:19 PM PDT
a few points:
- I am a flay judge.
- I flow on paper, so please speak with poise and do not spread
- a combination of rhetoric, structure, and body language win on delivery/the lay appeal
- on the flow side, I vote based on (1) collapsing. providing me with the clear/cleanest points to vote on in a debate will win my ballot-(2) quality + depth of your contentions. this means that I will highly value the link chains/impact worlds (whichever is relevant in the round)- and (3) dropped contentions. make it extremely clear which points your opponent has dropped/conceded (and why they matter!), as I will take these into high consideration
- when your opponent is speaking, please stay respectful
- if you want to communicate with your partner, please try to "look like you're talking at a whisper." what I expect/mean by this is to not look like you're talking normally at a normal volume- it can be distracting for both your opponents and the judges.
- instead, I really don't mind any other communication as long as it's out of the frame or make it look like you're whispering- simulating an in person tourney
- remember, each debate is a learning experience, not a symbol of how adept you are because so many other factors+ implicit biases go into each RFD.
- good luck!
Eddie Young
Kent Denver School
None
George Yu
Monta Vista High School
Last changed on
Mon January 22, 2024 at 12:41 AM PDT
I judge based on the notes I take. I try hard not to inject my own knowledge and opinions into a debate.
Please engage one another's arguments and provide clash. Please provide well-developed arguments with good warrant and impact. I would be more impressed with one to three well-developed, deep, and logical arguments over eight superficial, conclusory, and/or flat-out-ridiculous arguments.
Theory arguments have their place. If you make a theory argument, please convince me that your theory argument is actually worth caring about and is relevant to this topic, to this debate, and to your deserving to win.
Please be a human talking to another human and not a space alien talking to a computer. This means (1) you should be respectful to all, (2) if you speak too fast, I will be unable to write down all you say, and what I do not write down will probably not help you, and (3) if you decide to use jargon, please explain the jargon as if I don't know what it means. Debate is supposed to develop great leaders, and great leaders can communicate to all people, not just to other specialized people exactly like themselves.
Good luck!
YuYu Yuan
Palo Alto High School
Last changed on
Sat January 6, 2024 at 1:59 AM PDT
TLDR: Warrant out your arguments, weigh, tell my why I should vote for you, be nice, and have fun :)
For email related things: yuyu.yuan927@gmail.com
PF Paradigm: I have four years of experience in PF debate both in the local Wyoming circuit and the national circuit. I prefer tech over truth so I'll buy any argument you present as long as it's well-warranted and not unethical (i.e. racist, sexist, etc...). I want to see clash and weighing because I think that makes for more interesting debates. That being said you should tell me how I should vote in the round. I won't intervene in the debate. However, if you don't tell me how to vote I will definitely evaluate the link debate first and probably vote off of whoever has the biggest impact second. I will consider dropped arguments as conceded unless you can give me a reason why I should consider the new answer. I don't really want to hear any new arguments in summary though. If it's something that can be cross-applied to an argument that you have already made, most likely I'll buy it as long as the argument still stands. If there was only defense read on your contention but it's something you're not going to go for I'll let you kick it if you don't bring it up again in summary or final focus. If there is offense on the contention and you don't want to go for it you have to kick it yourself, I will not kick it for you.
Policy Paradigm: This is updated for Nats. I'm good with you reading any type of argument. Speed wise, I'm fine with it as long as you're clear and you send me the doc. I'm a big fan of critical literature and definitely think it belongs in the debate space, but would only appreciate it if it's actual discourse and not just because it's a meme. I think you can read your k aff if you justify it but I want you to actually make sense. I'm good with framework and topicality but any other type of theory arguments I'm not as familiar with. For example, I'm not the most experienced with condo debates. I personally don't think unlimited condo is fair but as long as you tell me why condo is good and your opponents don't adequately address your response, I won't vote you down for it.
LD Paradigm: I don't have much experience in LD but I have judged a bunch of LD rounds. I am open to K's being read in LD because I love the literature, but treat it like you would any other argument (i.e. tell me how I should evaluate it, why I should evaluate it that way, why the links are there, and why your opponents should lose the round). I will not automatically vote for you if you prove that your value and value criterion matters more than your opponent's value and value criterion. I often find that some LDers think that if they prove their value and value criterion matters more then they should win the round and end up forgetting about the rest of their case, but just because you define the utility function doesn't mean you maximize it (i.e. just because you prove your value to be more important, your case or how the arguments are interacting in the round may not necessarily prove it). Otherwise, the rest of my paradigm applies :)
It should be assumed that you shouldn't be mean in rounds so I expect good debate etiquette. If you are rude during the round, at the very least I will give you low speaks. Debate is supposed to be a fun and open environment and we should keep it that way. Overall, just have fun!
If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to email me or just ask me before the round starts.
Jang Yun
Miramonte High School
None
Sunghee Yun
Monta Vista High School
None
Sughra Zaidi
Rise Academy
Last changed on
Thu January 11, 2024 at 8:05 AM PDT
About me:
I am a mother of 1 high school child. This is her 2nd year judging in LD, PF and OI, DI, Impromptu speeches. I have been in the academic field for the past 6 years. Prior to that, I was in a start-up and corporate environment.
My paradigm is:
Judging Debate
All participants should act with civility, be respectful and gain respect.
I am ok with all speaking styles as long as it is followable. If I miss something I will ask the teams for the cards and reference documents.
If using technicalities please make sure it is explained in short as I do not have to not score according to what you deserve for not understanding a concept.
Impacts and their relevancy to the topic have a lot of weight in my scoring.
Avoid controversial topics unless absolutely necessary.
I take notes throughout to avoid going off-topic or adding random facts or comments.
points given based on how you speak and how you conduct yourself in cross. If you are blatantly rude, offensive, racist, sexist, etc you will be marked down to the lowest.
Let your opponent complete their thoughts in cross before interrupting.
Judging Speech:
I follow the tabroom room rubric closely.
General:
I do not shake hands.
Peter Zhang
Monta Vista High School
None
Yin Zhang
Able2Shine
None
Youwei Zhang
BASIS Independent Silicon Valley
None
Yubin Zhang
Monta Vista High School
None
Zhixiong Zhang
Dougherty Valley Bridge
Last changed on
Thu February 15, 2024 at 10:45 AM PDT
Hi! No need to worry about how to call me. I'm Jonathan .
- No pf experience as of 10/27/23.
- prefer clear and slower speaking speed .
- be a good debater. don't be rude or your speaks will bash you later
- have fun!
Daniel Zhu
Acalanes High School
Last changed on
Tue March 26, 2024 at 11:20 AM EDT
did pf for 3 years for monte vista high school. have competed for uc berkeley debate.
pf preferences:
i am hesitant to evaluate most progressive arguments but i could be convinced
if i'm judging speech i'll try my best
Austin Zhuang
BASIS Independent Fremont(HS)
None
Hua Zou
Amador Valley High School
Last changed on
Thu February 15, 2024 at 8:22 PM EDT
I am a parent judge. I expect contestants to speak clearly, varying tones , hand gestures, and confident delivery in speech events. I wish each contestant the best luck!